Madras High Court
R.Ramalingam vs Tamil Nadu Generation And ... on 2 August, 2022
W.P.No.7711 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.08.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.7711 of 2015
R.Ramalingam ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd,
Rep. By its Chairman and Managing Director,
No.144, NPKKR Maaligai, Anna Salai,
Chennai.
2.The Secretary
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd,
No.144, NPKKR Maaligai, Anna Salai,
Chennai.
3.The Chief Engineer, (Personnel)
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd,
No.144, NPKKR Maaligai, Anna Salai,
Chennai.
4.The Deputy Chief Engineer (Personnel)
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd,
No.144, NPKKR Maaligai, Anna Salai,
Chennai. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
from the respondents in connection with Letter No.022526/159/G14/
G141/2011 dated 03.01.2012 issued by the 3rd respondent and
consequential orders issued under ref: A.Sa.Ku.No.097343/1089/
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 15
W.P.No.7711 of 2015
G14/G141/2013-2 dated 18.12.2013 based on the Deputy Chief Engineer
reply dated 22.08.2013 and quash the same and direct the respondents to
re-fix the pay of the petitioner in the time scale of Rs.2120-80-2600-90-
3230-100-3520 with effect from 27.06.1989 on par with the other
employees and further direct the respondents to settle petitioner arrears.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Krishnamoorthy
For Respondents : Mr.P.Subramanian
[For TANGEDCO]
ORDER
The writ petition is filed to call for the records in connection
with the letter issued by the 3rd respondent in proceedings dated
03.01.2012 and the consequential order issued in proceedings dated
18.12.2013 and quash the same and direct the respondents to re-fix the pay
of the writ petitioner in the time scale of Rs.2120-80-2600-90-3230-100-
3520 with effect from 27.06.1989 on par with the other employees.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Pharmacist in the Tamil
Nadu Medical Sub-Ordinate Services on 20.04.1969. On completion of
ten years of service, the Selection Grade was awarded in the post of
Pharmacist with from 22.04.1979. The petitioner was admittedly deputed
to the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7711 of 2015
19.04.1985. The pay of the writ petitioner was fixed by the respondents.
Even in proceedings dated 25.09.1991, the pay of the writ petitioner was
fixed by awarding Special Grade in the post of Pharmacist. Accordingly,
granted the scale of pay of Rs.1820-60-2300-75-3200 with effect from
27.06.1989. It was made clear that the petitioner was awarded with the
Selection Grade and Special Grade in the post of pharmacist.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that
there was an error in fixing the scale of pay during the relevant point of
time in the year 1995 itself. The petitioner submitted a representation with
reference to the erroneous proceedings dated 28.08.1995 fixing the scale
of pay of the writ petitioner as Rs.2150 + 10 (PP) in the post of Special
Grade Pharmacist. The petitioner thereafter filed a writ petition in
W.P.No.4493 of 1996 with a prayer to quash the fixation order dated
28.08.1995 and memo dated 29.12.1995 and direct the respondents to fix
the pay as Rs.2150-05-2575-95-3050-105-3680.
4. The writ petition of the year 1996 was decided by this Court
on 19.06.2003. This Court passed an order, allowing the writ petition and
directing the respondents to afford opportunity to hear the writ petitioner
and thereafter, pass a detailed and reasoned order on merits within a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7711 of 2015
period of eight weeks. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in
the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner in the year 1996, the Tamil
Nadu Electricity Board passed a speaking order in proceedings dated
10.09.2003 and the said order reads as under:
“3. In Para Medical category in the Board a higher post
to Pharmacist category namely Supdt./Medical Stores was created
carrying the scale of pay at Rs.1750-2960 w.e.f. 13.04.1994 to
accommodate the Senior Most Pharmacist considering the scale of
Pay drawing at the time of absorption. As the scale of pay settled in
the Board are slightly advantageous over the scale of pay of the
corresponding category in Govt. Moreover but for his appointment
in Govt., if the individuals joins in Board service by the time they
may be in the scale of pay of Rs.1750-65-2075-75-2450-85-2960
only corresponding to the Sel.Gr.Pay as Senior Pharmacist. From
the date of fixation of pay on permanent absorption till the date of
retirement the individual got higher pay than what they would have
drawn had they continued in Govt. scale. They should not choose
best of both for getting higher scale and higher pay than in Govt.
4. The request for refixation of higher scale was already
rejected on the above score. Apart from that while fixing the pay of
1996 Wage Revision in Board's scale is allowed service weightage
by which he is gained more than two increment of service
weightage. This benefit is not allowed if he is continued in govt.
Scale /revised scale of Pay. Further the revised scale of pay (i.e.)
Rs.2120-80-2600-90-3230-100-3530 relates only to other
categories of Board employees whose pay scales have been revised
as per the work load settlement w.e.f. 1.12.92 and not to such those
persons who absorbed permanently into Board service.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7711 of 2015
5. Thiru.R.Ramalingam, Spl.Gr.Pharmacist (Retired) is
therefore informed that his request to fix his pay in the scale of pay
of Rs.2120-80-2600-90-3230-100-3530 with retrospective benefits
from 27.6.1989 is not feasible for compliance.”
5. Pertinently, the claim of the writ petitioner for revision of
scale of pay by quashing the fixation order of the year 1995 was
adjudicated by the respondents elaborately pursuant to the directions
issued by this Court in W.P.Nos.4492 and 4493 of 1996 and the claim of
the writ petitioner was rejected. The petitioner states that he preferred an
appeal on 28.11.2003. However, there is no acknowledgement or
reference in any of the proceedings of the petitioner. Therefore, such
representation, which is not supported with the acknowledgement, cannot
be trusted upon at this length of time. However, the petitioner has
subsequently made a representation to the respondents on 14.10.2011 and
on 29.10.2011, which were acknowledged by the respondents. The
respondents have stated that the request of fixing the pay in the time scale
of pay of Rs.1750-65-2075-75-2480-85-2960 with effect from 01.01.1994
is not feasible of compliance since his pay already fixed at Rs.2150 + 10
PP in the scale of pay of Rs.2120-80-2600-90-3230-100-3530 is said to be
correct and higher pay.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7711 of 2015
6. The petitioner has further submitted a representation on
25.10.2013 and the said representation was finally rejected in proceedings
dated 18.12.2013. Thereafter, the writ petitioner filed the present writ
petition in the year 2015 at the age of 70 years. Now, the petitioner would
be around 78 years old and seeking the benefit of pay with effect from the
year 1995.
7. The writ petitioner has rightly filed a writ petitioner in the
year 1996, soon after the fixation was made by the respondent in the year
1995. This Court also considered the relief sought for and directed the
authorities to pass orders on merits by affording an opportunity to the writ
petitioner. Accordingly, the respondents provided an opportunity to the
writ petitioner and adjudicated the issued on merits and issued a speaking
order in proceedings dated 10.09.2003. Thereafter, the petitioner has not
pursued the matter and the said order has not been challenged by the writ
petitioner for several years. Even now the said proceedings dated
10.09.2003 has not been challenged and it became final. Instead of
challenging the said order of rejection passed by the authorities in
proceedings dated 10.09.2003 issued pursuant to the direction issued by
this Court in W.P.Nos.4492 and 1193 of 1996, the petitioner again
submitted a representation after a lapse of about 8 years in the year 2011
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7711 of 2015
and the said representation was entertained and an order of rejection was
passed in the year 2013.
8. Question arises, whether such a procedure adopted by the
aggrieved person can be approved by the High Court in the matter of
fixation of pay, more so, after the prolonged period or not. The writ
petition itself was filed at the age of 70 years. The petitioner soon after the
rejection of his claim for rejection of pay in the year 2003, ought to have
adjudicated the matter in an appropriate manner. Contrarily he has
submitted a representation after a lapse of about 8 years in the year 2011
and thereafter, again submitted a representation in the year 2013, which
was also rejected in the year 2013, which is under challenge in the present
writ petition.
9. Lapsed cause of action cannot be restored after a long years.
That apart, the fixation of pay if at all to be rectified or an anomaly
aroused, the same is to be adjudicated within a reasonable period of time.
No doubt, the petitioner has approached this Court soon after the fixation
order has been passed by the respondents. However, he has not pursued
the matter after rejecting the claim of the writ petition in proceedings
dated 10.09.2003. Thereafter, he waited for about 8 years and reopened
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7711 of 2015
the cause of action for the purpose of re-adjudication. Such a practice of
reopening of lapsed cause of action cannot be a ground to entertain a writ
petition.
10. It is a growing a trend that representations are sent to the
authorities and a writ petition is filed, to direct the authorities to consider
the representation. On obtaining an order to consider the representation,
the authorities are forced to pass an order on merits. Such an order has
been taken as fresh cause for the purpose of adjudication of lapsed issues
and the said practice can never be appreciated by this Court.
11. Any aggrieved employee is expected to redress his
grievances within a reasonable period of time. The method of restoring the
lapsed cause of action by the litigant, at no circumstances is encouraged
by the High Court. This being the factum, this Court is of an opinion that
the petitioner is not entitled for the relief.
12. The learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents made a submission that even on merits, the petitioner is not
entitled for the relief and the relevant paragraphs 7 and 8 of the counter
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7711 of 2015
affidavit filed by the respondents reads as under:
“7. I submit that the petitioner is getting more pay in
Board than in Government as detailed below:
Government Scale Board's Scale
Rs.1820-60-2300-75-3200 Rs.1750-65-2075-75-2450-85-2960
1.1.94 : Rs.2060 + 100 IR 1.1.94 : Rs.2150 + 10 (PP)
1.4.94 : Rs.2120 + 100 IR 1.4.94 : Rs.2225 + 10 (PP)
1.4.95 : Rs.2180 + 100 IR 1.4.95 : Rs.2300 + 100 (PP)
The Comparative Statement (i.e) pay drawn by Thiru. R.Ramalingam, in
Government and pay now fixed in Board's scale is furnished below:
Pay + DA Drawn in Government Pay + DA Drawn Difference
in Board (Increase in
Board)
Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs.
1.1.94 :
PAY : 2060/- 2150+10
IR : 100/- --
DA : 2142/- -4302/- 2246 -4406/- 104/-
1.4.94 :
PAY : 2120/- 2225+10
IR : 100/- --
DA : 2205/- -4425/- 2324 -4559/- 134/-
1.7.94 :
PAY : 2120/- 2225+10
IR : 100/- --
DA : 2417/- -4637/- 2548 -4783/- 146/-
1.10.94 :
PAY : 2120/- 2225+10
IR : 100/- --
DA : 2417/- -4637/- 2548 -4783/- 146/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7711 of 2015
Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs.
1.1.95 :
PAY : 2120/- 2225+10
IR : 100/- --
DA : 2650/- -4870/- 2794 -5029/- 150/-
1.4.95 :
PAY : 2180/- 2300+10
IR : 100/- --
DA : 2725/- -5005/- 2888 -5198/- 193/-
1.7.95 :
PAY : 2180/- 2300+10
IR : 100/- --
DA : 2725/- -5005/- 2888 -5198/- 193/-
By virtue of the above fixation, this petitioner not only gets an
increased benefit of Rs.104/- in a basic pay with effect from 1.1.94
but also an increase in the rate of increment on the subsequent
dates over the Government scale of pay. Thus the petitioner had no
monetary loss at any stage consequent on permanent absorption in
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.
8. With regard to the averment of the petitioner in Para
(6) of the affidavit it is respectfully submitted that the averment of
the petitioner that those who were drawing the scale of Rs.1260-
60-1380-70-1680-2060-90-2150 were given revised scale of pay
Rs.2120-80-2600-90-3230-100-3500 is applicable only to the
Board's employees whose pay scale were revised as per settlement.
In other words the revised scale of pay (i.e) Rs.2150-85-2575-95-
3050-105-3680 is applicable only to the Board's employees whose
pay scale had been revised as per the settlement with effect from
01.1292 and not to such of those person who are permanently
absorbed in the Board and each case is examined and pay fixed to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7711 of 2015
such deputationist without any loss in emoluments.”
13. In a recent judgment of the three Judges Bench of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman / Managing Director,
Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. And Others Vs. Ram Gopal
reported in [(2020) SCC Online SC 101], made an observation as follows:
“Whilst it is true that limitation does not strictly apply
to proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution of
India, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an
unreasonable lapse of time. Consideration of unexplained delays
and inordinate laches would always be relevant in writ actions,
and writ courts naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising their
discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who have slept over
wrongs and allowed illegalities to fester. Fence-sitters cannot be
allowed to barge into courts and cry for their rights at their
convenience, and vigilant citizens ought not to be treated alike with
mere opportunists. On multiple occasions, it has been restated that
there are implicit limitations of time within which writ remedies
can be enforced.
P.S. Sadasivaswamy versus State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC
152 held as follows:
“2. … One cannot sleep over the matter and come to the Court
questioning that relaxation. In effect he wants to unscramble a
scrambled egg. It is not that there is any period of limitation for
the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that
there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a
matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7711 of 2015
be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse
to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the
case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and
who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the
Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled
matters……”
In SS Balu v. State of Kerala, (2009) 2 SCC 479 this Court
observed thus:
“17. It is also well-settled principle of law that “delay defeats
equity”. It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner
approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for
may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches
irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other
candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgment.”
In Vijay Kumar Kaul v. Union of India, (2012) 7 SCC 610 held
as follows:
“27. …It becomes an obligation to take into consideration the
balance of justice or injustice in entertaining the petition or
declining it on the ground of delay and laches. It is a matter of
great significance that at one point of time equity that existed in
favour of one melts into total insignificance and paves the path of
extinction with the passage of time.”
It is also pertinent to mention that neither has it been pleaded nor
is it apparent from the material on record that the Respondent was
unable to approach the court-of-law in time on account of any
social or financial disability. Had such been the case, he ought to
have availed free legal aid and should have ventilated his
grievances in a timely manner.''
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7711 of 2015
14. Thus, the Court has laid down the principles that the writ
petitions filed in respect of lapsed causes deserves no further
consideration on the hands of the High Court in a writ proceeding. In view
of the facts and circumstances, the petitioner has not established any
acceptable reason for the purpose of considering the relief.
15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
02.08.2022
Jeni
Index : Yes
Speaking order : Yes
To
1.The Chairman and Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd,
No.144, NPKKR Maaligai, Anna Salai,
Chennai.
2.The Secretary
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd,
No.144, NPKKR Maaligai, Anna Salai,
Chennai.
3.The Chief Engineer, (Personnel)
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd,
No.144, NPKKR Maaligai, Anna Salai,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7711 of 2015
4.The Deputy Chief Engineer (Personnel)
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd,
No.144, NPKKR Maaligai, Anna Salai,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7711 of 2015
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Jeni
W.P.No.7711 of 2015
02.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
