Madras High Court
Unknown vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 January, 2022
W.P.No.11450 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated 07.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.11450 of 2014
1. C.Jayapradha
2. R.P.Adhina
3. B.Jayabharathi
4. R.M.Priya
5. S.Parasakthi
6. Savithri
7. J.Sudha
8. D.Komala
9. S.Poovizhi
10. R.Vijayalakshmi
11. R.Suresh
12. B.Yamuna
13. S.Sathya
14. D.Vimala
15. M.Vidyavathi
16. Kirubasankari
17. K.Jayagandhi
18. P.Rajathi
19. M.Chandramohan
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11450 of 2014
20. S.Radhai
21. R.Prabhavathi
22. K.Vedharathinam
23. K.Jayakumar
24. T.Paneerselvam
25. D.Chandran ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Secretary to Government,
Finance Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 09.
2. The Secretary to Government,
Agriculture Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 09.
3. The Commissioner of Agriculture,
Chepauk, Chennai – 05.
4. The Joint Director of Agriculture,
Villupuram District,
Villupuram. ... Respondents
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11450 of 2014
Writ petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in
pursuant to the impugned clarification letter issued by the 1st respondent
in Letter No.38566/Paycell/2009-1, dated 06.08.2009 and quash the
same and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioners
to exercise their respective option for revised scales of pay as per
G.O.Ms.No.234, finance (Paycell) Department, dated 01.06.2009 and
accordingly revise their pay on par with their colleagues and pay the
arrears and other consequential benefits.
For petitioner : Mr.Ravishanmugam for
Mr.Premnarayan
For Respondents : Mr.P.Anandakumar,
Government Advocate
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed to quash the impugned clarification
letter issued by the 1st respondent in Letter No.38566/Paycell/2009-1,
dated 06.08.2009 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to
permit the petitioners to exercise their respective option for revised
scales of pay as per G.O.Ms.No.234, finance (Paycell) Department,
dated 01.06.2009 and accordingly revise their pay on par with their
colleagues and pay the arrears and other consequential benefits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11450 of 2014
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they have been working as
Assistant Agricultural Officers since July 2010. Pursuant to the
recommendations of the official committee for revision of Pay and
Allowances under the Tamil Nadu Revised Pay Scales Rules 2009, the
Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.234, Finance (Paycell),
Department, dated 01.06.2009. Accordingly as per schedule I, the
revised scale of pay Rs.5200-20200 + Rs.2800 Grade Pay was fixed to
the post of Assistant Agricultural Officers. Subsequently the following
clarification was called from the Government on 06.08.2009:
“I am directed to clarify that employees can opt to
remain in the existing sale of pay (Pre-revised scale of
pay) upto any period of their choice between 01.01.2006
to 31.05.2009 (i.e.,) prior to the date of issue of
notification of Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules,
2009. As such, the employees are permitted to exercise
their option to come over to the revised scales from the
date on which the pre-revised pay scales were revised
upward subsequent to 01.01.2006”
3. In view of the above clarification stated, the Assistant
Agricultural Officers appointed prior to 31.05.2009 alone were given the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11450 of 2014
benefits for opting to remain in the existing scale of pay upto any period
of their choice. Such benefit is denied to the petitioners who are joined
as Assistant Agricultural Officers after 31.05.2009.
4. According to the petitioners the post of Assistant Agricultural
Officers is single category and the pay scales are fixed uniformly in
G.O.Ms.No.234. Having extended the benefit of exercising option upto
31.05.2009, the same should be extended to all the Assistant
Agricultural Officers appointed subsequently since the cut off date is no
relevance and it is imaginary.
5. The learned counsel for the to the petitioners submitted that the
recruitment notification was issued on 26.08.2008, through which 1707
vacancies of Assistant Agricultural Officers were called for through
employment seniority and interview. The petitioners were selected by
the TNPSC Department in July 2010 and forwarded the names to the
recruiting authority. At the time appointment it is noted that the
petitioners had completed their diploma in Agriculture from
C.Subramaniyam Institute of Agriculture, Tindivanam in Villupuram
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11450 of 2014
District. The said Institution was not included in the pre amended
Service Rules to the post of Assistant Agricultural Officers in the Tamil
Nadu Agricultural Extension Subordinate Service. Thereafter the
petitioners along with others filed a petition before this Court for
inclusion of C.Subramaniyan Institute of Agriculture in the Special
Rules and that subsequently the same was allowed by this Court.
Thereafter, pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in W.A.No.981
of 2009 and W.P.(MD).No.8296 of 2008, the petitioners were appointed
as Agricultural Officers during July 2010. Hence, the delay occurs only
in issuing the appointment order to the petitioners.
6. The respondents filed counter affidavit stating that the
petitioners were selected and appointed only after issuance of
notification implementing the revised scales of pay vide
G.O.Ms.No.234, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 01.06.2009.
Hence they are not eligible to claim the pre-revised scale of pay on par
with their senior who were recruited and appointed prior to 01.06.2009.
Hence, their claim was rejected.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11450 of 2014
7. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the
Judgement of this Court made in W.P.No.7144 of 2014 wherein in an
identical situation, the similarly placed persons were allowed to get the
relief as prayed for in the light of the orders passed by this Court in
W.P.Nos.15378 to 15383 of 2013 dated 03.10.2019. In the orders
passed in W.P.Nos.15378 to 15383 of 2013, this Court had held that
where there is a delay due to administrative reason, the employees
cannot be deprived of the benefits and it was held that the writ
petitioners therein were also entitled for the same benefit. Accordingly,
the benefits were extended to all the categories recruited by the
Tamilnadu Public Service Commission prior to 01.06.2009 and joined
on a subsequent date on or after 01.06.2009. Aggrieved, the Department
preferred an appeal in W.A.No.1836 of 2021. By an order dated
04.08.2021, this Court had rejected the claim of the Department and
confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge and directed the
Government to extend the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.340, Finance (Pay
Cell) Department, dated 26.08.2010 to the Writ Petitioners therein who
are similarly placed persons as that of the petitioners herein. In the light
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11450 of 2014
of the aforesaid decision, the petitioners prayed for the aforesaid relief.
8. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the
materials available on record.
9. A fair reading of the Judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court dated 04.08.2021 made in W.A.No.1836 of 2021, clearly shows
that if there is delay in appointment, due to administrative reasons, the
employees cannot be deprived of the benefits which are extended to the
persons in similar cadre. Hence, this Court is of the view that the
petitioners herein also entitled for the relief sought for in the light of the
orders passed in W.A.No.1836 of 2021, dated 04.08.2021. Therefore
the respondent Department is directed to revise the scale of pay to the
petitioners on par with their batch mates appointed prior to 01.06.2009
in the light of the W.A.No.1836 of 2021 and G.O.Ms.No.340, Finance
(Pay Cell) Department, dated 26.08.2010. The said exercise shall be
completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this Order.
10. With the above observation, this Writ Petition stands allowed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11450 of 2014
No costs.
07.01.2022
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/non Speaking order
vum
To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Secretary to Government,
Finance Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 09.
2. The Secretary to Government,
Agriculture Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 09.
3. The Commissioner of Agriculture,
Chepauk, Chennai – 05.
4. The Joint Director of Agriculture,
Villupuram District,
Villupuram.
Salem District, Salem.
D. KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11450 of 2014
vum
W.P.No.11450 of 2014
07.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
