Madras High Court
The Management Of vs M.Jeganathan on 2 March, 2022
W.A(MD)Nos.174 & 175 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 02.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.A(MD)Nos. 174 & 175 of 2022
and C.M.P (MD) Nos. 1711 & 1715 of 2022
The Management of
State Express Transport Corporation (Tamilnadu) Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Pallavan Salai,
Chennai – 2. .. Appellant
in both appeals
Vs
M.Jeganathan .. Respondent
in W.A.(MD) No. 174/2022
S.Rajendran .. Respondent
in W.A.(MD) No. 175/2022
Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 19.12.2017 made in W.P.(MD) No. 5963 & 5964 of 2010.
For Appellant in : Mr.S.Baskaran
both appeals
For Respondent : Mr.S.Arunachalam
in both appeals
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.174 & 175 of 2022
COMMON JUDGMENT
[Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.]
Challenge in these appeals is made to the order dated
19.12.2017 recorded on W.P.(MD) Nos. 5963 & 5964 of 2010. These
appeals are by the respondent/ employer.
2. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that,
the writ petitioner / employee was not entitled to stepping-up of pay
because of consequence of revision of pay as per standing instructions of
the Corporation and therefore the said stepping up of pay ought not to
have been granted. It is submitted that learned Single Judge was in error
in granting relief to the petitioners. It is submitted that these appeals be
entertained.
3. On the other hand, learned advocate for the
respondents / original writ petitioners has submitted that the persons
junior to the writ petitioners were getting the pay as per their entitlement
vis-a-vis their juniors however only after the revision of pay, anomaly
cropped up and the juniors were getting more pay than the petitioners,
which was required to be rectified by stepping-up of pay, which was asked
for, which the Corporation denied inter alia on the ground of financial
2/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.174 & 175 of 2022
difficulties. Attention of this Court is invited to the contents of the counter
filed on behalf of the management in this regard. It is submitted that
could not be a ground to grant stepping-up of pay. It is submitted that the
relief granted by learned Single Judge is just and proper and no
interference be made by this Court. It is submitted that these appeals be
dismissed.
4. Having heard learned advocates for the respective
parties and having considered the material on record this Court finds as
under:-
4.1 The dispute raised by the petitioners was that the
persons junior to them started getting higher pay, after the revision of
pay. This according to us, was the pay anomaly to be taken care of by the
employer, by stepping-up of pay of the petitioners vis-a-vis their juniors.
The denial by the Management to do so was illegal and on being
challenged, the relief granted by learned Single Judge can not be said to
be any error, which may call for any interference in these appeals. These
appeals therefore need to be dismissed.
4.2 We are informed that contempt proceedings are
already initiated by the writ petitioners, since the impugned order is of the
3/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.174 & 175 of 2022
year 2017. The dismissal of these appeals today, which is the first day of
listing, will not be a ground available to the appellant / Management to
justify non-compliance of the order for all these years.
5. For the above reasons and with above clarification,
these appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions would not survive.
[P.U., J] [K.R., J]
02.03.2022
Index : No
sj/8
4/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.174 & 175 of 2022
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
sj
W.A(MD)Nos.174 & 175 of 2022
02.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
