Madras High Court
Unknown vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 December, 2023
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
W.A.(MD).Nos.804 to 814 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.12.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.A.(MD).Nos.804 to 814 of 2022
and
C.M.P.(MD).Nos.6728, 6729, 6840, 6841, 6843 to 6845, 6847 to 6850,
6852, 6853 to 6855, 6857 to 6861, 6865 to 6867, 6869, 6876, 6877, 6879,
6881, 6882, 6886, 6888 and 6889 of 2022
W.A.(MD).No.804 of 2022
1.C.Manikandan
2.C.M.Edwin Jayakumar
3.S.Sivakumar
4.C.Aji Kumar
5.A.David Raj
6.C.John Bosco
7.G.Shajimon
8.T.Sasi
9.P.Jayan
10.S.Sreekumar
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).Nos.804 to 814 of 2022
11.V.M.Suresh Kumar
12.D.A.Richard Solomon
13.V.Suresh Kumar
14.K. Kumaraswamy
15.T.Ruban
16.V.Pushparaj
17.S.Rajesh
18.J.P.Jemin
19.A.Christopher Jabasingh
20.P.Robinson .. Appellants 12 to 20/
Petitioners 16 to 24
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
Finance Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
3.The Director of Town Panchayat,
O/o. the Director of Town Panchayat,
Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai - 600 028.
Page 2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).Nos.804 to 814 of 2022
4.The Director,
Local Fund Audit,
Integrated Complex for Finance Department,
5th Floor, Saidapet,
Animal Husbandry Hospital Campus,
Nandanam,
Chennai - 35.
5.The Executive Officer,
Verkilambi Grade - I Town Panchayat,
Kanyakumari District.
6.The Executive Officer,
Thiruvattar Grade - 1 Town Panchayat,
Kanyakumari District.
7.The Executive Officer,
Kollamcode Grade Town Panchayat,
Kanyakumari District.
8.The Executive Officer,
Athur Grade - II Town Panchayat,
Kanyakumari District.
9.The Executive Officer,
Arumanai Grade-1 Town Panchayat,
Kanyakumari District.
10.The Executive Officer,
Kulasekaram Selection Grade Town Panchayat,
Kanyakumari District.
11.The Executive Officer,
Thiruparappu Selection Grade Town Panchayat,
Kanyakumari District. .. Respondents 1 to 11/
Respondents
Page 3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).Nos.804 to 814 of 2022
12.T.Asari
13.T.Manoharan
14.M.David Johnson
15.T.Thansilas .. Respondents 12 to 15/Petitioners 12 to 15
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to
allow the Writ Appeal and set aside the order passed in W.P.(MD).No.17700
of 2020 dated 10.01.2022 insofar as the revision of scale of pay is
concerned by allowing the Writ Appeal.
For Appellants : Mr.H.Arumugam
for Mr.P.P.Alwin Balan
For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.Veerakathiravan
& R-5 to R-11 Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.SP.Maharajan
Special Government Pleader
For R-4 : Mr.T.Amjad Khan
Government Advocate
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.)
These Writ Appeals arise against the common order of the learned
Single Judge dated 10.01.2022 passed in W.P.(MD).Nos.2205 of 2020 etc.,
batch.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).Nos.804 to 814 of 2022
2. There is no dispute that all the writ petitioners were working as
Over Head Tank Operators, Motor Operators, Helpers, etc., under the Town
Panchayat Service cadre. They were originally appointed as NMRs or as
daily wages. Their services were subsequently regularised by virtue of the
fact they had put in long years of service.
3. The Government appointed a One Man Commission in order to
decide on the revision of pay and re-designation of technical posts. As we
have already pointed out, none of the petitioners/appellants come within the
scope of technical posts. The Government passed an order in G.O.Ms.
No.338, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 26.08.2010. As per the
recommendation of the One Man Commission dealing with revision of pay
scales, it decided to accept the said recommendation of technical employees
appointed with I.T.I certificate and those employees, who did not have I.T.I
certificate, but had practical experience. The Government decided to merge
the unskilled and semi-skilled employees in the trade post and came up with
revised pay scales. As luck would have it, the writ petitioners were drawing
the scale of pay of Rs.2550-3200, which had been revised to
Rs.5200-20200 + 1900 G.P.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).Nos.804 to 814 of 2022
4. The Director of Town Panchayat, taking note of the aforesaid
Government Order, decided to give the revised pay scale, which is
applicable to unskilled employees, categorised as other trade posts, to the
posts in which the writ petitioners were employed. For a period of nearly
seven years, the writ petitioners were drawing the revised pay scale as fixed
under G.O.Ms.No.338, i.e., to say 5200-20200 + 1900 G.P. This was on the
basis of the mistaken understanding of the Government Order by the
Director of Town Panchayat in and by way of his proceedings under
Na.Ka.No.21256/12/A3 dated 10.06.2013.
5. During the course of audit, the mistake came to light, i.e., the
mistake of treating the persons in Tamil Nadu Town Panchayat basic service
on par with those under the Tamil Nadu Town Panchayat establishment. In
order to rectify this mistake, the order impugned in the Writ Petitions dated
07.10.2020 had been passed.
6. We heard Mr.H.Arumugam representing Mr.P.P.Alwin Balan,
learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.Veerakathiravan, learned
Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).Nos.804 to 814 of 2022
7. Mr.H.Arumugam would vehemently contend that the category of
posts is not mentioned in the Government Order and all that is mentioned is
the pay scale and the writ petitioners, who were drawing the same pay scale
as mentioned in Clause 5, are entitled to draw the revised pay scales.
According to him, the Government had decided to merge the skilled and
unskilled persons and gave a new category of other trade posts, i.e.,
re-designated as unskilled. According to him, since the Government has
treated them as unskilled under the Government Order, they are entitled to
draw the revised scale of pay and consequently, the impugned order has to
be set aside.
8. The learned Additional Advocate General would point out the
difference between the qualification that had to be applied to be a skilled
worker and the fact that there were employees, who were not qualified
educationally, but had obtained the same due to their practical experience.
He would also point out that the writ petitioners fall under basic service for
which the qualification is only VIII standard pass or X standard fail,
whereas, in case of trade post workers, they had to possess a minimum of
I.T.I. The mistake committed by the Director of Town Panchayat had only
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).Nos.804 to 814 of 2022
been corrected pursuant to the audit and therefore, the decision of the
respondents is correct and does not require interference.
9. We have carefully considered the arguments on either side. We are
in entire agreement with the learned Additional Advocate General. The writ
petitioners are all covered under basic services, namely, services which are
governed by Tamil Nadu Town Panchayat Establishment (Qualification and
Recruitment of Office Assistants) Rules, 1988, whereas, the trade posts are
covered under the Tamil Nadu Town Panchayat Establishment Rules. It is a
fortuitous circumstance that the pay that the petitioners were drawing were
similar to those who were unskilled, but possessed practical experience.
The Director of Town Panchayat had equalized the writ petitioners, who are
in basic service, with those in the technical service and had granted the
relief to the writ petitioners. This factum had come to light when an audit
was done and the mistake committed by the Director of Town Panchayat
came to light. This has been rectified by the impugned order in the Writ
Petitions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).Nos.804 to 814 of 2022
10. The writ petitioners, who are VIII Standard pass and X Standard
fail, cannot claim to be equivalent to the persons with I.T.I certificate and
persons, who did not have I.T.I certificate, but those who had technical
qualification by virtue of their practical experience. The idea of merging
skilled and unskilled workers was to finally phase out the unskilled
assistants till the present incumbents vacate their posts. This benefit which
had been granted for persons who are otherwise not technically qualified,
but possessed experience, cannot be granted to the writ petitioners, who are
in an entirely different service. Therefore, we do not find any error in the
impugned order. Accordingly, the Writ Appeals are dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions
are closed.
(S.M.S.,J.) (V.L.N.,J.)
07.12.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Lm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).Nos.804 to 814 of 2022
To
1.The Secretary,
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Finance Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
3.The Director of Town Panchayat,
O/o. the Director of Town Panchayat,
Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai - 600 028.
4.The Director,
Local Fund Audit,
Integrated Complex for Finance Department,
5th Floor, Saidapet,
Animal Husbandry Hospital Campus,
Nandanam,
Chennai - 35.
5.The Executive Officer,
Verkilambi Grade - I Town Panchayat,
Kanyakumari District.
6.The Executive Officer,
Thiruvattar Grade - 1 Town Panchayat,
Kanyakumari District.
7.The Executive Officer,
Kollamcode Grade Town Panchayat,
Kanyakumari District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).Nos.804 to 814 of 2022
8.The Executive Officer,
Athur Grade - II Town Panchayat,
Kanyakumari District.
9.The Executive Officer,
Arumanai Grade-1 Town Panchayat,
Kanyakumari District.
10.The Executive Officer,
Kulasekaram Selection Grade Town Panchayat,
Kanyakumari District.
11.The Executive Officer,
Thiruparappu Selection Grade Town Panchayat,
Kanyakumari District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).Nos.804 to 814 of 2022
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
and
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
Lm
W.A.(MD).Nos.804 to 814 of 2022
07.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
