Madras High Court
The Deputy Director Of Family ... vs Dharmaraja on 1 August, 2023
WA(MD).No.1038 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.A.(MD)No.1038 of 2015
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015
The Deputy Director of Family Welfare
Tirunelveli Medical College Campus
Poonuchamy Bungalow Compound
Tirunelveli District ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Dharmaraja
2.S.Murugesan
3.M.Boopathi
4.M.Kumar
5.M.Sankaran
6.R.Subash Pandiyan
7.A.Appar
8.K.Selvaraj
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA(MD).No.1038 of 2015
9.C.Gunasekaran
10.M.Thangasamy
11.R.Sekar
12.K.Ganeshan
13.M.S.Gurusamy (Rtd.)
14.S.Banumoorthy (Rtd.)
15.N.Murugaiya
16.U.Sivakumar
17.P.Sathasivam
18.R.Petchimuthu
19.P.Ganesan
20.S.Muniyasamy
21.M.Sangili Raja
22.S.Chandran
23.The Joint Director of Health Service
Government Headquarters Hospital
Ramanathapuram District
24.The Deputy Director of Health Service
Old Police Station Road
Samanathapuram
Tirunelveli District
25.The Government Primary Health Centre
Munijipatti (Post)
Nanguneri (Taluk)
Tirunelveli District
2/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA(MD).No.1038 of 2015
26.The Deputy Director of Health Service
Collector Campus
Ramanathapuram District
27.The District Social Welfare Officer
Collectorate Campus
Ramanathapuram District
28.The Designated Officer
Tamil Nadu Food Safety and
Drug Administrative Department
Collectorate Campus
Ramanathapuram District
29. The Block Development Officer
Village Panchayat
Paramakudi
30.The Block Medical Officer
Government Primary Health Centre
Bogalur-Paramakudi
Ramnad District
31.The Block Medical Officer
Government Primary Health Care
Keelathuval, Muthukulathur (Taluk)
Ramnad District
32.The Block Medical Officer
Government Primary Health Centre
R.S.Mangalam
Ramnad District
33.The Block Medical Officer
Government Primary Health Centre
Uchipuli, Ramnad District
3/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA(MD).No.1038 of 2015
34.The Block Medical Officer
Government Primary Health Centre
Pondubudi @ Thondi
Ramnad District
35.The Deputy Director of Health Service
Race Course Road, Trichy
36.The Superintending Engineer
Agricultural Engineering Department
No.2, Jail Cornar, Subramaniyapuram
Trichy
37.The Executive Engineer
Agricultural Engineering
Virudhunagar
38.The Block Medical Officer
Government Primary Health Centre
Zaminkollankondan
Rajapalayam (Taluk)
Virudhunagar District
39.The Block Medical Officer
Government Primary Health Centre
Devipattinam, Ramnad District
40.Deputy Director of Health Service
Paramakudi (HOD)
Paramakudi
41.The District Treasury Officer
Collectorate Campus
Ramanathapuram
4/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA(MD).No.1038 of 2015
42.The Hosur Treasury
Collectorate Campus
Tirunelveli
43.The Hosur Treasury
Trichy
44.The District Treasury Officer
Collectorate Campus
Tirunelveli
45.The Sub-Treasury Officer
Paramakudi
46.The Sub-Treasury Officer
Muthukulathur
47.The Sub-Treasury Officer
Thiruvadanai
48.The Sub-Treasury Officer
Mandapam Campus
49.The Assistant Treasury Officer
Nanguneri
50.The Sub-Treasury Officer
Rajapalayam
Virudhunagar District
51.The Sub Treasury Officer
Ramanathapuram
52.The Personal Assistant to Collector
Rural Development Office
Ramanathapuram ... Respondents
5/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA(MD).No.1038 of 2015
(Respondents 2 to 52 are given up)
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set
aside the order, dated 19.07.2013 in WP(MD).No.11543 of 2013 and
allow this writ appeal.
For Appellant :Mr.M.Sidharthan
Additional Government Pleader
For R1 :Mr.Ayiram K.Selvakumar
For Mr.M.Ravi
****
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)
We have had occasion to consider an identical issue in
W.A(MD).No.1281 of 2013 batch case by order dated 14.07.2023 and
passed the following order therein, in the light of admitted facts in detail:
“The appellants in these Writ Appeals are the Child
Development Project Officer and the District Forest Officer. The
respondents/Writ Petitioners are Drivers in the aforesaid two
departments and had sought a Mandamus directing the
respondents in the Writ Petition to re-fix Selection and Special
Grade Scales of Pay, as indicated in Schedule-II of the Tamil
Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 (1998 Rules). The slab
at which they sought re-fixation was 5000-150-8000 and
5500-175-9000 respectively, with consequential monetary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA(MD).No.1038 of 2015
benefits and arrears with effect from 01.01.1996.
2.The Writ Court has noted the dates of entry into
service, grant of Selection Grade, grant of Special Grade and
the retirement of the respondents by way of the following
tabulation:
date of date of
Sl. Date of
Name of the grant of grant of date of
entry into
No. petitioner Selection Special retirement
service
Grade Grade
1. Subbuiah 20.11.1984 20.11.1994 20.11.2004 31.05.2008
(W.P.No.2925 of
2012)
2. Santhanam 12.03.1976 12.03.1986 12.03.1996 31.01.2009
(W.P.No.2926 of
2012)
3. Govindasamy 16.09.1981 16.09.1991 16.09.2001 30.09.2005
(W.P.No.2927 of
4. Panchavarnam 04.04.1983 04.04.1993 04.04.2003 31.10.2010
(W.P.No.2928 of
2012)
5. S.Chandasekaran 28.04.1993 05.01.2004 ....... Petitioner
(W.P.No.2939 of is in
2012) service
6. R.Ravindranathan 02.03.1998 02.03.20 ....... Petitioner
(W.P.No.2940 of is in
2012) service
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA(MD).No.1038 of 2015
7. P.Chandrasekaran 05.11.1990 05.11.2000 ....... Petitioner
(W.P.No.2942 of is in
2012) service
3.Relying on G.O.Ms.No.162, Finance (Pay Cell)
Department dated 13.04.1998, the Writ Petitioners had
contended that there was no parity that had been followed in
grant of ordinary pay and correspondingly Selection and
Special Grade pay.
4.The Writ Court accepted the prayer following the
order passed by a Division Bench in a batch of Writ Appeals
in W.A.Nos.383 to 391 and 393 of 2009 dated 01.09.2009.
That order was subject matter of a Review Application and by
order dated 15.04.2021, the Review Applications were allowed
following the ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court dated 18.12.2019 in Civil Appeal Nos.9533-9537 of
2019 and batch in P.Singaravelan and others vs the District
Collector, Tiruppur and others.
5.The question that arose therein was identical to
the present matter and in conclusion, the Division Bench has
directed that the fixation of pay be allowed to the Petitioners
therein as per Sl.No.6 of Schedule-II, which fixes the pay
scales at Rs.4000-100-6000 and 4300-100-6000.
6.In the interest of clarity, the original order in Writ
Appeal had fixed the pay scales in terms of Sl.No.8 at Rs.
5000-8000 (Selection Grade) and Rs.5500-9000 (Special
Grade) and this stood modified to the scales of pay set out in
Sl.No.6, being Rs.4000-100-6000 (Selection Grade) and
4300-100-6000 (Special Grade).
7.The judgment in P.Singaravelan was followed in a
batch of Writ Appeals filed by the Department of Sericulture in
W.A.No.1398 of 2013 and batch by a decision dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA(MD).No.1038 of 2015
08.07.2015. The operative portion of the decision, being
paragraphs 42 and 43, is set out hereunder:
“42. Therefore, in the result, all the writ petitions
filed by the individual employees claiming Selection
Grade scale of pay of Rs.5000-8000 and Special
Grade pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 are liable to be
dismissed. However, there are a few writ petitions
such as W.P.Nos.23550 of 2010, 5498 of 2012 and
30616 of 2012, where the employees claim that they
are not even granted the admissible Selection
Grade and Special Grade scales pay of Rs.
4000-6000 and Rs.4300-6000 respectively.
43. Therefore, with a clarification that all the
petitioners in the writ petitions and the respondents
in the writ appeals are entitled only to a Selection
Grade scale of pay of Rs.4000-100-6000 and a
Special Grade scale of pay of Rs.4300-100-6000,
but not more than that, all the writ petitions filed by
the employees are dismissed. All the writ appeals
filed either by the State Government or by various
Heads of Departments or by various officers of the
Government or by various Local Bodies or Boards
or Corporations, shall stand allowed. There will be
no order as to costs.”
8.In dealing with that batch, the Bench had dealt
with the specific argument of discrimination that had found
favour by Mr.Justice D.Hariparanthaman in the order
impugned in appeal now and at Paragraphs 27 and 28 they
state as follows:
27. Therefore, the Writ Petitioners in the
present batch of cases cannot rely upon Article 14,
when this Court never went into the question
(except in the decision of D.Hariparanthaman,J) as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA(MD).No.1038 of 2015
to whether the drivers are entitled to a selection
grade scale of pay of Rs.5000/- and a special grade
scale of pay of Rs.5500/-.
28. As rightly pointed out by the Learned
Advocate General, the pressure that keeps
mounting upon this Court due to the huge pendency
and the tendency that results therefrom, to dispose
of at least those cases which are covered by earlier
decisions, even on the first or second date of
hearing, has actually led to this position. Therefore
we cannot sweep the core issue under the carpet
and reiterate the same mistakes by taking recourse
to Article 14. Hence we reject the first contention
advanced on behalf of the employees.”
9.In the result, these Writ Appeals are allowed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed. “
2.In light of the identity in factual and legal position, this Writ
Appeal stands allowed in line with the above order. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[A.S.M.J.,] & [R.V.J.,]
01.08.2023
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes
msa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA(MD).No.1038 of 2015
DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
AND
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
msa
Judgment made in
W.A.(MD)No.1038 of 2015
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015
Dated:
01.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
