Madras High Court
Unknown vs V. Manoharan on 30 September, 2021
W.A. No. 1630 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A. NAKKIRAN
W.A. No. 1630 of 2021
&
C.M.P. No. 10211 of 2021
1. The Secretary to the Govt. Of Tamil Nadu,
Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments
Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu,
Finance Department, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
3. The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation
Limited,
Tamil Nadu Tourism Complex,
2, Wallajah Road (Near Kalaivanar Arangam),
Chennai – 600 002.
1\10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 1630 of 2021
4. The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation
Limited,
Tamil Nadu Tourism Complex,
2, Wallajah Road (Near Kalaivanar Arangam),
Chennai – 600 002. ..Appellants
Vs.
V. Manoharan ..Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal as against the order dated 17.04.2018 passed in
W.P. No. 32792 of 2016.
For Appellants :: Mr.K.V. Sajeev Kumar for
appellants 1 & 2
Mr.Bala Ramesh for
appellants 3 and 4
For Respondent :: Mr.R. Ramachandran
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.)
The present appeal has been preferred questioning the order dated
17.04.2018 passed in W.P. No. 32792 of 2016.
2. The respondent herein filed the writ petition challenging the
2\10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 1630 of 2021
proceedings dated 31.03.2016 issued by the third appellant herein rejecting
the representation of the respondent to ante date the financial benefit
granted to him in the Selection Grade of Receptionist, as granted to his
counterparts/Junior Assistants from 01.01.2007 by quashing G.O.Ms. No.
237, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments (T2-2) Department dated
24.09.2014 and also the consequential orders passed subsequently.
3. The learned Single Judge, on perusal of the materials on record
and considering the rival submissions made, was of the view that when
similarly placed employees have been given the benefit, the respondent/writ
petitioner cannot be singled out and treated on a different footing and
therefore, set aside the order passed by the third appellant herein and
directed the third appellant to submit a proposal for revision of scale of pay
of actual monetary benefit of selection grade granted to the respondent/writ
petitioner from 01.01.2007 and thereafter, the first appellant was directed to
pass necessary orders, extending the benefit to the respondent/writ
petitioner on receipt of such proposal. Challenging the same, the present
writ appeal has been filed by the Government.
3\10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 1630 of 2021
4. The main contention of the appellants is that the post of
Receptionist could not be equated to that of a Junior Assistant and that the
learned Single Judge had erroneously interfered with the impugned order in
the writ petition and directed monetary benefits to be extended to the writ
petitioner from 01.01.2007 as a decision has been taken by the Government
to extend the monetary benefits from 01.02.2011. It has been decided that
the revision of Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay shall be
regulated as per the Government Letter dated 08.11.2010 which states that
notional effect will be from 01.01.2006 and the actual monetary benefits
will be from 01.02.2011. The learned Judge had erroneously compared the
post of Receptionist to that of Junior Assistant and extended the monetary
benefits payable to the writ petitioner from 01.01.2007, which needs to be
interfered with.
5. On the other hand, the respondent would contend that the posts
of Receptionist and Accounts Assistant of Tamil Nadu Tourism
4\10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 1630 of 2021
Development Corporation are considered to be equivalent to the post of
Junior Assistant in the said Corporation. In this context, the respondent
would rely upon the Government Order in G.O.Ms. No.237 Tourism,
Culture and Religious Endowments (T2-2) Department dated 24.09.2014
wherein at paragraph No.3, it is stated as follows:
"3. In the letter fifth read above, the Managing
Director, Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation has
stated that, the Government Orders above have been adopted
by Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corproation for the
posts of Junior Assistants/Typists and Stenos/Assistants. He
has also stated that the posts of Receptionist and Accounts
Assistant in Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation
are similar to the post of Junior Assistant and the post of
Accountant is similar to the post of Assistant. They have
requested the Management to extend the revised scale of pay
issued by the Government in the Government letter and
Government Order first and second read above to them."
When the posts of Receptionist and Accounts Assistant are equivalent to the
post of Junior Assistant and the Corporation had, by proceedings dated
11.04.2012, decided to revise the Selection Grade and Special Grade
Scales of pay for the posts of Junior Assistants, Typists, Telephone
5\10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 1630 of 2021
Operators, Assistants and Stenos, notionally with effect from 01.01.2006
and monetarily from 01.01.2007, failure to extend the said benefit to the
posts of Receptionists, Accounts Assistants and Accountants, would
tantamount to discrimination. Further, according to the respondent, when
the Board of TTDC, in its 261st meeting held on 07.08.2013, had resolved to
extend the revised Selection Grade and Special Grade Scales of pay to the
posts of Receptionist/Accounts Assistant and Accountant with notional
effect from 01.01.2006 and monetary benefit from 01.01.2007 and
forwarded the proposal to the Government for approval, the rejection of the
same by the Government, only in respect of the post of Receptionist/
Accounts Assistant/Accountant, without any apparent reason, is
unsustainable. Hence, the respondent would submit that the learned Single
Judge was right in granting the relief sought in the writ petition and the writ
appeal deserves to be dismissed.
6. Heard both parties.
6\10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 1630 of 2021
7. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the rival submissions,
in the operative portion of the order, observed as follows:
"7. It appears, the report of the One Man Anomaly
Committee with regard to revison of scale of pay of Junior
Assistants/Typists/Telephone Operators was accepted by the
Government, enhancing their grade pay in the selection grade
or special grade and, so far as the ordinary grade is
concerned, it shall take effect from 01.01.2006, but the actual
monetary benefit shall be granted from 01.02.2011. In respect
of the revised scale of pay under selection grade/special
grade, for the employees, who were already in the aforesaid
grade prior to 01.01.2006, such benefit was granted to them
from 01.01.2007. The aforesaid scheme was also accepted by
the public sector undertakings in view of the Government
instructions, in that regard. The petitioner, who was a
receptionist and was working in that cadre, and others were
also extended such benefit, considering their service at par
with such Junior Assistants, on the ground of parity, but,
while granting selection grade, they were given the actual
benefit from 01.02.2011, in spite of the resolution of the third
respondent to extend such benefit as extended to other Junior
Assistants of the Government. The petitioner, therefore,
submitted a representation in that regard, but the same was
7\10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 1630 of 2021
rejected by the second respondent, in view of the fact that the
Government had not approved the same. It is submitted that
Junior Assistants, Typists and Telephone Operators have been
granted notional benefit in selection grade from 01.01.2006
and monetary benefit from 01.01.2007. Though the service of
the petitioner is at par with such Junior Assistants, Typists
and Telephone Operators and the said persons were granted
the monetary benefit of higher grade pay from 01.01.2007,
there was no apparent reason not to extend such actual
benefit of higher grade pay to the petitioner from 01.01.2007.
The reason assigned that since Junior Assistants were given
such benefit in the entry grade from 01.02.2011, such
selection grade cannot be given from 01.01.2007 is without
any substance, inasmuch as the similarly placed employees
have been given such benefit and discrimination has been
made in respect of the petitioner. ......"
8. From the aforesaid discussion of the learned Single Judge, it is
very clear that the post of Receptionist is equivalent to that of Junior
Assistant. Once the Government decided to extend the monetary benefits
from 01.01.2007 in respect of Junior Assistants having Selection
Grade/Special Grade, postponing the said benefit to those holding
8\10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 1630 of 2021
equivalent posts in the Corporation, to a later date, in spite of the resolution
of the Corporation may not be correct. When all the benefits that are
available to Government Servants are being extended to the employees of
Corporation, depriving the above said benefit for want of approval of the
Government, would amount to discrimination among similarly placed
employees. Hence, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has
rightly granted the relief, which need not be interfered with. The writ appeal
stands dismissed. The time limit granted by the learned Single Judge, to
comply with his order, is extended by a period of four months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Connected C.M.P. is closed.
(S.V.N.J.) (A.A.N.J)
nv 30.09.2021
9\10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 1630 of 2021
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
A.A. NAKKIRAN,J.
nv
W.A. No. 1630 of 2021
30.09.2021
10\10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
