Madras High Court
K.Paranthaman … vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 8 August, 2022
W.P. No. 8663 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.08.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU
W.P. No. 8663 of 2017
K.Paranthaman … Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Commissioner,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Ripon Building, Park Town,
Chennai – 600 003.
3. The Assistant Commissioner,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Zone XV, 120, Rajiv Gandhi Salai,
Sholinganallur, Chennai – 600 119. ... Respondents
Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950,
praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Second and Third
Respondents herein to correct the Service Register of the Petitioner to the effect
that his services had been regularised with effect from 01.08.2003 and to fix his
pay accordingly from that date onwards and consequently pay the difference in
salary after deducting the amount already paid to him within a time frame.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/11
W.P. No. 8663 of 2017
For Petitioner : Mr. K.M.Ramesh
For Respondents : Mr. P.Balathandayutham
Special Government Pleader (for R1)
Mr. D.B.R.Prabhu (for R2 & R3)
ORDER
Heard Mr. K.M.Ramesh, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner,
Mr. P.Balathandayutham, Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
First Respondent and Mr. D.B.R.Prabhu, Learned Counsel appearing for the
Second and Third Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart
from the pleadings of the parties.
2. It is the case of the Petitioner, who was sponsored through employment
exchange, that he was appointed by Order in Na. Ka. No. 86/99 dated
01.08.2000 passed by the Executive Officer, Sholinganallur Town Panchayat in
the post of sweeper in terms of G.O. (Ms.) No. 84, Municipal Administration and
Water Supply (Town.2) Department dated 21.05.1998 on consolidated pay of
Rs. 900/- per month. It is further claimed that as per that Governmental Order, he
was entitled to regularization of service with time scale of pay on completion of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 8663 of 2017
three years from the date of appointment, but it was not implemented and had
been kept in abeyance by letter dated 29.07.2002 from the Government of Tamil
Nadu. However, the Government of Tamil Nadu had issued another Order in
G.O. (Ms.) No. 60, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated
23.06.2006 in which regularization of service with time scale of pay was granted
to daily rated workers, but monetary benefits were given effect only from
23.06.2006. The grievance ventilated by the Petitioner is that such benefit ought
to have been granted on completion of three years from the date of appointment
and could not be restricted from 23.06.2006. In the meanwhile, Sholinganallur
Town Panchayat has been merged with Greater Chennai Corporation in the year
2011 and all its existing employees were taken into the service of Greater
Chennai Corporation. It is also stated that some part of the monetary benefits
have been received by the Petitioner after he had filed C.P. No. 73 of 2008
before the I Additional Labour Court, Chennai, but the monetary benefits of
regularization of service with time scale of pay on completion of three years from
the date of appointment has not been fully granted despite his representation
dated 28.10.2016 in that regard. In such circumstances, the Petitioner has filed
this Writ Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 8663 of 2017
3. It has been brought to notice that in respect of similarly placed persons,
who had been engaged in Town Panchayats, the Division Bench of the Court in
Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Municipal Administration and
Water Supply Department, Chennai -vs- M.Rani (Order dated 30.06.2015 in
W.A. No. 1289 of 2014) had held that such employees are entitled to grant of
time scale on regular basis on the basis of performance assessment to be done on
completion of three years and in the event, it is found satisfactory, they are
entitled to regularization on completion of three years with all consequential
monetary benefits, and that the Government of Tamil Nadu by G.O. (Ms)
No. 142, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (TP.1) Department dated
23.09.2015 had implemented the same stating as follows:-
“9. The Government have examined the proposal of the Director
of Town Panchayats in the light of the orders of the High Court or
Madras in the batch cases of Writ Appeals and decided to accept
the proposal of the Director of Town Panchayats to permit the
Executive Officers of Town Panchayats concerned to regularize
the services of the 2923 employees working in sanitation, water
supply and street light maintenance in Town Panchayats who were
already brought into the time scale of pay as per the G.O. 5th read
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 8663 of 2017
above with effect from 23.06.2006 excluding the employees who
were already brought into time scale of pay from the date on which
they have completed 3 years of service on consolidated pay due to
Court orders, from the date on which they have completed 3 years
of service on consolidated pay and for claiming the arrears of pay
from the General Fund of the Town Panchayats concerned subject
to the condition that the salary and establishment cost including
this expenditure should not exceed 49% of the total revenue of the
concerned Town Panchayats and order accordingly.”
In this context, reference must also be made to the dictum of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in State of Uttar Pradesh -vs- Arvind Kumar
Srivastava [(2015) 1 SCC 347], where it has been held as follows:-
"22.1. Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees
is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons
need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so
would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article
14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied
in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence
evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly
situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 8663 of 2017
rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons
did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated
differently.
22.2. However, this principle is subject to well recognized
exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as
acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful
action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up
after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts
who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their
efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the
judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be
extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and
laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid
ground to dismiss their claim.
22.3. However, this exception may not apply in those cases
where the judgment pronounced by the Court was judgment in rem
with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons,
whether they approached the Court or not. With such a
pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself
extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 8663 of 2017
situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision touches
upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like
(see K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India (supra). On the other
hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that
benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the
Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or
it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the
judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment
extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not
suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence."
Having regard to the aforesaid legal position, the obligation is cast upon the
concerned authorities to have on their own accord extended the benefit to all
similarly placed persons, if they are eligible for the same.
4. In the additional Counter-Affidavit dated 18.03.2022 filed by the Third
Respondent it has been stated as follows:-
“10. I respectfully submit that based on the above Government
Order, the Petitioner's service has been entered in the service
record as the date of joining as 01.10.1998 and the Petitioner's
service has been regularized on 23.02.2006 in the Service
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 8663 of 2017
Register, and monetary benefit had been calculated on completion
of 3 years (i.e., from 01.10.1998) and the arrears of pay have been
claimed and paid to the Petitioner as per G.O. Ms. No. 142, M.A.
& W.S. Department dated 23.09.2015.”
5. In such circumstances, the following order is passed:-
(i) the concerned authority shall immediately consider the representation
dated 27.05.2016 made by the Petitioner in terms of G.O. (Ms) No. 142,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply (TP.1) Department dated
23.09.2015 including ascertaining as to whether the Petitioner has been
granted the entire benefits claimed;
(ii) if it is found that any details or supporting documents satisfying the
eligibility criteria for the benefits claimed has not been produced, the
deficiencies in that regard shall be informed in writing to the Petitioner
requiring the same to be furnished within a time frame of not less than 15
clear working days in that regard;
(iii) in the event of not being satisfied with the requirements thereafter, an
enquiry shall be conducted affording opportunity of personal hearing to the
Petitioner to explain him position in that regard;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 8663 of 2017
(iv) a reasoned order shall be passed dealing with each of the contentions
raised on merits and in accordance with law and the decision taken
communicated to the Petitioner by 31.10.2022 under written
acknowledgment;
(v) if the Petitioner is found entitled to the claim made, the eligible amount of
arrears of differential amount of monetary benefits after adjusting any
payment already made along with working-sheet showing its calculation,
shall be paid within a period of three months from the date of passing of
such order, apart from revised pay for future months on the due dates; and
(vi) the report of completion of the aforesaid exercise shall be filed before the
Registrar (Judicial) of the Court.
In fine, the Writ Petition is disposed on the aforesaid terms. No costs.
08.08.2022
gd
Index: Yes/No
Note: Issue order copy by 26.08.2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 8663 of 2017
To
1. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Commissioner,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Ripon Building, Park Town,
Chennai – 600 003.
3. The Assistant Commissioner,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Zone XV, 120, Rajiv Gandhi Salai,
Sholinganallur, Chennai – 600 119.
Copy to
The Registrar (Judicial),
Madras High Court,
Chennai – 600 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 8663 of 2017
P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.
gd
W.P. No. 8663 of 2017
08.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
