Madras High Court
M.Muniraj vs The Tamil Nadu State Transport on 16 September, 2022
W.P.No.16802 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. KUMARESH BABU
W.P. No.16802 of 2009
and W.M.P.No.1 of 2009
M.Muniraj ... Petitioner
vs
1.The Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Salem) Ltd., rep. by
its Managing Director,
12, Ramakrishna Road,
Salem.
2.The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Salem) Ltd.,
Dharmapuri Region,
Bharathipuram,
Dharmapuri – 636 705.
3.The Assistant Manager (Personnel)
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Salem) Ltd.,
Dharmapuri Region,
Bharathipuram,
Dharmapuri – 636 705. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
relating to the order No.PA3/0990/TNSTC/Dharmapuri/06 dated 29.06.2006
passed by the 3rd respondent, quash the same and consequently, direct the
respondents to grant the petitioner third review with effect from 01.08.2005
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1 of 8
W.P.No.16802 of 2009
with all monetary and consequential benefits and to grant me promotion as
Senior Checking Inspector on par with the persons who were given 3rd
review on or before 01.08.2005 with all consequential benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ajoy Khose
For Respondents : Mr.R.Babu
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of the 2nd
respondent dated 29.06.2006, whereunder, he was informed that the Review
Committee has decided to postpone his higher scale of pay by a period of
one year, in view of his unsatisfactory services for the previous year.
2.Heard Mr.V.Ajoy Khose, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr.R.Babu, learned counsel for the respondents.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that before
taking such decisions that the petitioner was not put on notice. Therefore, he
had also made a representation. However, the said representation was
rejected by a communication dated 29.06.2006. The petitioner on the same
date had made a request to reconsider the issue. However, by communication
dated 03.03.2007, the respondent considering the petitioner had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16802 of 2009
satisfactorily completed the service without any interruption had directed
refixation of his pay by higher scale from 01.02.2007.
4.The petitioner being aggrieved against the postponement of the
higher pay scale of pay on completion of services for 24 years filed the
present Writ Petition. He also relied upon the judgment of this Court in
W.P.No.20923 of 1994 dated 03.11.2000, wherein, this Court had held that
the denial of benefit of higher scale of pay for a workmen which have been
made without any legally acceptable basis and merely stating that his
services were not satisfactory, would be arbitrary and therefore, the learned
Single Judge had set aside the order and directed to the grant of higher pay
and therefore, requested this Court to interfere with the order and direct
recommendation of higher pay scale from 01.08.2005 on date of which he
was eligible to be granted.
5.Countering his arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent
relied upon the counter filed by the Managing Director of the 1st respondent
Corporation would submit that eventhough he was eligible for grant of
higher pay of scale as he has completed 24 years of qualifying service, the
Review Committee has not considered the same for the reason that his
services were not satisfactory. It is his further case that the review sought to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16802 of 2009
be made by him was rejected since, as per the provision 62 (e) under
Common Service Rule for State Transport Corporation, once a review was
rejected by the Competent Authority, then his case shall not be taken up for
review again until after a period of one year form the date on which his case
was reviewed last.
6.I have considered the arguments made by the learned counsels
appearing on both sides and perused the materials available on record before
this Court.
7.The petitioner's right to get higher pay of scale was postponed by the
Review Committee on the premises of non-satisfactory services. The said
order does not specify the instances of what had made the Review
Committee to come to such a conclusion as has been held by the learned
Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.20923 of 1994. There should be some
reasons stated for denial of benefit of such higher pay scale, which he would
be otherwise entitled to and also in agreement with such a view, if such an
arbitrary power is given to the Review Committee, then such power would
be exercised to their whims and fancies, which would amount to arbitrary
exercise of power.
8.Even in the counter filed by the 1st respondent, it has not specified
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16802 of 2009
any reasons whatsoever, which necessitated the postponement of higher pay
scale. The further contention of the respondent that the Writ Petition is not
maintainable and the petitioner would have to be delegated to the Labour
Court also does not impress me. This Writ Petition was filed in the year 2009
and the present counter was filed only in February, 2022. It is also brought to
the notice of this Court that the petitioner was aged 53 years at the time of
filing of the Writ Petition and therefore he would have superannuated much
before today.
9.Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the
view that the petitioner has been denied the higher pay scale of pay without
any reasonable explanation and therefore he is entitled for higher scale of
pay, as on 01.02.2006. Considering the fact that the petitioner had
superannuated, I am of the view that the respondent is directed to grant the
higher scale of pay with effect from 01.02.2006 and fix a notional pay from
that date and grant him all attendant benefit notionally. On fixing of such
higher pay scale, the difference in Provident Fund amount alone may be
credited to the account of the petitioner which would entitle him to better
monetary benefits that what he would have received at the time of his
superannuation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16802 of 2009
10.As stated above, after arriving at the final retirement benefit, the
respondents are directed to pay the balance retirement benefits to the
petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
11.Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. However, there shall
be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
also closed.
16.09.2022
Index: Yes/no
Speaking/non-speaking
gba
To
1.Managing Director,
for The Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Salem) Ltd.,
12, Ramakrishna Road,
Salem.
2.The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Salem) Ltd.,
Dharmapuri Region,
Bharathipuram,
Dharmapuri – 636 705.
3.The Assistant Manager (Personnel),
Tamil Nadu State Transport
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16802 of 2009
Corporation (Salem) Ltd.,
Dharmapuri Region,
Bharathipuram,
Dharmapuri – 636 705.
K. KUMARESH BABU, J.
gba
W.P.No.16802 of 2009
and W.M.P.No.1 of 2009
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16802 of 2009
16.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
