Madras High Court
Unknown vs The Principal Secretary To The ... on 2 June, 2023
W.P.(MD).No.12819 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 02.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P.(MD).No.12819 of 2016
and
W.M.P.(MD).No.9692 of 2016
1.R.Raja
2.R.T.Parimanam
3.B.Palanivel
4.S.Damaodaran
5.D.Balaji
6.M.Gowthaman
7.M.R.Suresh
8.R.Ravichandran
9.K.Ramesh Babu
10.K.Kannusamy
11.G.Rathinavel
12.R.Gnanavel
13.M.Sekar
14.P.Kumar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
W.P.(MD).No.12819 of 2016
15.S.Lakshmikanthan
16.C.Poosaimani
17.G.Vairavel
18.K.Selvaraju
19.K.M.Anguraj
20.P.Kandasamy
21.S.Saravanan ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to the Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Finance (Pay Cell) Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 9.
2.The Director of Municipal Administration,
Chepakkam,
Chennai – 5.
3.The Director of Local Fund Audit,
Kurazhagam, Chennai – 108.
4.The Commissioner,
Tiruchirapalli City Municipal Corporation,
Tiruchirapalli. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining
to the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent proceedings in
Na.Ka.No.E6/388/2016/(Maiyam) dated 17.06.2016 and quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/7
W.P.(MD).No.12819 of 2016
For Petitioners : Mr.P.Arun Jayatram
For Respondents : Mr.R.Baskaran,
Additional Advocate General,
Assisted by,
Mr.M.Lingadurai,
Special Government Pleader.
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed to quash the order dated 17.06.2016.
2. The petitioners are working in the fourth respondent Corporation. The
fourth respondent has passed the impugned order and also directed to recover
the revised scale of pay. The first respondent Government implemented the
Sixth Pay Commission recommendation through the Tamil Nadu Revised
Scales of Pay Rules, 2009. However, while categorizing the skilled and un-
skilled labourers, the respondents Government has not applied the scientific
method. A similar issue was raised before this Court in W.P.(MD)No.669 of
2018 and the learned Single Judge vide order dated 19.11.2021 has held as
under:
“47. For a decision on whether the re-fixation is proper,
the 2010, 2012 and 2015 proceedings are to be reconciled.
A copy of audit objection has not been placed on file.
However, proceedings dated 21.05.2015 refers to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.12819 of 2016
objection to the effect that some certain posts classified
under the category 'other trade posts' (unskilled) in the
annexure to the 2012 letter cannot be considered as
technical posts as they do not involve technical skill and
therefore, higher category of pay cannot be granted to such
categories.
48.While exercise of determining the appropriate
categorization of posts is entirely within the domain of the
State, such categorization must be seen to be based on
proper and appreciable differentia. A comparison of the
categorization of 'other trade posts' in proceedings dated
01.10.2012 and Annexure -B of proceedings dated
21.05.2015 would show that not all the posts differentiated
as 'other trade posts' have been denied the effect of the pay
enhancement.
49.Sixty nine (69) trade posts are covered in proceedings
dated 01.10.2012 and 36 stand excluded in 2015.Upon a
comparison of the two lists, I find that among those
retained in the technical trade posts in the category of
‘cleaners’ are fountain cleaner, motor cleaner, pipe line
cleaner, pump cleaner, pump house cleaner, reservoir
cleaner, and filter beed cleaner, whereas tank cleaner, drain
cleaner, silt pucket cleaner and lorry cleaner have been
excluded.
50.Then again while tank watchman, park watchman, head
works watchman, reservoir watchman, spring watchman,
water supply watchman, thoppu watchman, market
watchman, bus stand watchman, boarding & lodging
watchman, weekly market watchman, kalyana mandapa
watchman and TB watchman stand excluded, borewell
watchman and pump house watchman continue to have the
benefit of increased pay.
51.I am thus, at a loss to understand the basis of
differentiation within the two categories as above. To my
mind, the exercise has been done mechanically simply
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.12819 of 2016
following the audit objection and this is arbitrary. The
respondents must apply their minds in a proper, scientific
manner in the categorization of posts as ‘skilled’ and
‘unskilled’ prior to arriving at a decision in regard to the
exclusions. Let this exercise be done forthwith, bearing in
mind the duties and functions performed by all categories
of employees in category 5 of proceedings issued in 2012.
Impugned order dater 30.10.2017, not being based upon
proper categorization of the trade/non-trade posts is set
aside qua the aspect of re-fixation of pay”.
3. Following the aforesaid judgment, another learned Single Judge has
passed an order dated 28.02.2023 in W.P.(MD)Nos.6705 of 2020 etc. batch.
The aforesaid two orders directed the respondents to apply scientific method to
categorize the skilled and unskilled labours. The respondents have
mechanically followed the orders without scientifically categorizing the skilled
and unskilled labours.
4. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the mechanical
categorizing, is illegal. Therefore, this Court by following the earlier
judgments referred supra, is inclined to allow this Writ Petition in the above
terms. Hence, the impugned order is quashed. After categorizing, whatever
benefits accrued to the petitioners, the same shall be disbursed to the
petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.12819 of 2016
5. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no
order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
02.06.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
Nsr
To
1.The Principal Secretary to the Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Finance (Pay Cell) Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 9.
2.The Director of Municipal Administration,
Chepakkam,
Chennai – 5.
3.The Director of Local Fund Audit,
Kurazhagam, Chennai – 108.
4.The Commissioner,
Tiruchirapalli City Municipal Corporation,
Tiruchirapalli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.12819 of 2016
S.SRIMATHY, J.
Nsr
W.P.(MD).No.12819 of 2016
02.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
