Madras High Court
S.A.Mani vs Commissioner Of Rural ... on 17 August, 2023
2023:MHC:3812
W.P.No.32791 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 17.08.2023
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.No.32791 of 2016
and WMP No.28553 of 2016
S.A.Mani
... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Commissioner of Rural Development and
Panchayat Raj, Panagal Building,
Chennai – 15.
2. District Collector,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
.... Respondents
Prayer: PETITION filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
entire records of the 2nd respondent herein in his Na.Ka.No.12284/2016/PAA
1 dated 04.08.2016 and quash the same and consequently direct the
respondents herein to re-fix the pay of the petitioner herein in the Selection
Grade scale for the post of Rural Welfare Officer Grade – I w.e.f 01.05.1985
and pay the difference in pay, pension and other monetary benefits with due
interest in accordance with law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1
W.P.No.32791 of 2016
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Rajasekaran
For Respondents : Mr.V.Nanmaran
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Certiorarified
Mandamus seeking records of the 2nd respondent, District Collector,
Kancheepuram District in Na.Ka.No.12284/2016/PAA 1 dated 04.08.2016
and quash the same, seeking a further direction to the respondents herein to
re-fix the pay of the petitioner herein in the Selection Grade scale for the post
of Rural Welfare Officer Grade – I, with effect from 01.05.1985 and pay the
difference in pay, pension and other monetary benefits with due interest in
accordance with law.
2. The petitioner had joined the Government service as Village Level
Worker on 01.05.1965 in the Agriculture Department. Subsequently,
consequent to the decision taken by the Government, he was absorbed in the
Rural Development Department as Gramasevak Grade II on 01.12.1972,
which post was re-designated as Rural Welfare Officer, Grade II ( in short
'R.W.O. Grade II').
3. Consequent upon the judgment of this Court dated 19.04.2005 made
in W.P.Nos.19960 to 19962 of 1998 etc. directing revision of seniority of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.32791 of 2016
Village Level Workers absorbed as Gramasevak Grade II in the Rural
Development Department by counting the services rendered by them in the
Agricultural Department, the petitioner was given selection grade with effect
from 01.10.1978 and again on 01.10.1988 in the post of R.W.O. Grade II and
Grade I respectively.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was stagnated in the same
post as RWO Grade II which was earlier called as Gramasevak Grade II in the
Rural Development Department and it is contended that he ought to have
been granted selection grade, since he had put in 20 years of service in the
higher post and the monetary benefits which would have accrued to him, were
also to be extended to him.
5. In the counter affidavit, it had been stated that subsequent to the
retirement of the petitioner herein, notional promotion was granted to address
the grievance of the petitioner. It was contended that after completion of 1
year, 4 months and 13 days in Selection Grade of Grade II services from
01.10.1978, even though according to the petitioner he was stagnated in the
same post, he was notionally promoted as Assistant, equivalent to Rural
Welfare Officer Grade I. This would indicate that he had moved from Grade
II to Grade I.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.32791 of 2016
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, placed reliance on
G.O.Ms.No.210, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per-5) Department
dated 11.03.1987. The said Government Order was passed on the basis of a
recommendation of a One Man Committee consequent to the recommendation
of the 4th Tamil Nadu Pay Commission. The relevant portion of the said
Government order reads as follows:
'2. The Government after careful examination
accept the recommendation of the One man Committee
and direct that the service in the Selection Grade of the
lower post shall be counted for the Selection Grade in the
promoted post provided that the Selection Grade scale of
the lower post is identical to the ordinary grade of the
higher post, and that the concession be allowed only at
the first promotion level. Government also direct that in
the case of posts with different grades one who has put in
10 years or more of service in the lower post (eg. Grade
II) shall be advanced to the next higher post (i.e. Grade I)
under the scheme of Flexible Complementing and one
with a service of 20 years or more be advanced to
Selection Grade of the higher post (i.e. Grade I)
wherever it has already been provided.'
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner had interpreted this very
Government Order by stating that the Government had accepted the
recommendation that the services in the selection grade of the lower post
shall be counted for selection grade in the promoted post, provided the
selection grade in the lower post is identical to the ordinary grade of the
higher post.
8. In the instant case, the petitioner had actually been promoted, though
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.32791 of 2016
notionally after retirement. That promotion was given effect to after
completion of 1 year 4 months and 13 days in the post of Selection Grade
R.W.O. Grade II. This grant of notional promotion would address the issue
raised by the petitioner.
9. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner was
notionally promoted in the cadre of Assistant on 03.10.1983, in the cadre of
Extension Officer on 30.01.1992, Deputy Block Development Officer on
01.05.1998 and Block Development Officer on 11.08.1999. It was also stated
that the petitioner was further promoted notionally as Assistant Director,
Rural Development on par with his junior. The pay was also fixed notionally
and calculated for the pension.
10. Therefore, the issues raised by the petitioner that he was stagnated
during the periods 1985 – 1987 had been effectively addressed by grant of
notional promotion, though after the date of his retirement and to the extent
possible, granted with necessary monetary benefits in recognition of the
services rendered by him. The petitioner should be satisfied with that
notional promotion upto the rank of Assistant Director, Rural Development.
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.32791 of 2016
11. In light of the aforesaid narration, the relief sought for by the
petitioner cannot be granted and this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No
costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.
17.08.2023
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral citation:Yes/No
sl
To
1. Commissioner of Rural Development and
Panchayat Raj, Panagal Building,
Chennai – 15.
2. District Collector,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
W.P.No.32791 of 2016
and WMP No.28553 of 2016
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
