Madras High Court
The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs N.Suresh Kumar on 16 October, 2023
W.A.No.2109 of 2018 etc. batch
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.10.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.A.Nos.2109 to 2150 of 2018
W.A.No.2109 of 2018:
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Addl. Chief Secretary,
Finance (Pay Cell) Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Engineer-in-Chief (Buildings) &
Chief Engineer (General),
Public Works Department,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. ... Appellants
Vs.
1.N.Suresh Kumar
2.M.Madan
3.G.Jeyaprabha
4.R.Jeyakumar
5.M.Dhanasekaran
6.T.Vimala Veni
7.R.Saraswathy
8.T.Malathi
9.S.Vetrivel
10.S.Karthikeyan ... Respondents
Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, praying
to set aside the common order dated 04.06.2018 made in W.P.No.29097
of 2017.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2109 of 2018 etc. batch
For Appellants : Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar
Special Government Pleader
For Respondents : Mr.N.Subramaniyan
Mr.D.Mohan for R1 to R10
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)
Since the issue raised in these appeals is a common one and arise
out of the common order passed by the Writ Court dated 04.06.2018
made in W.P.No.29097 of 2017 etc. batch, with the consent of the
learned counsel appearing for both sides, all these writ appeals were
heard together and are disposed by this common order.
2. After the 6th Central Pay Commission Recommendation, the
State Government had decided to accept the Central 6th Pay Commission
Recommendation to be implemented for the State Government employees
also. Accordingly, the revised scale of pay was announced by the State
Government by G.O.(Ms).No.234 Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated
01.06.2009. Subsequently, a One Man Commission was appointed by
G.O.(Ms).No.444 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 09.09.2009. The
One Man Commission submitted a report, considering the report, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2109 of 2018 etc. batch
State Government issued a consequential Government Order in
G.O.(Ms).No.312 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 26.08.2010.
3. By the said Government Order, the State Government granted a
revised scale of pay plus grade pay attached to various posts, the revised
scale of pay were ordered to come into effect on notional basis from
01.01.2006 for the purpose of fixation of pay and the revised scales of
pay and with monetary benefit from 01.08.2010.
4. The employees hitherto had received the benefit under the said
G.O.(Ms).No.312, similar G.Os. are issued in respect of various posts.
5. However, still the State Government had received various
queries and grievances with regard to the One Man Commission's Report,
therefore the Government decided to redress the grievances, therefore in
order to find out whether their grievances were genuine or not issued a
Government Order in G.O.(Ms).No.71, Finance (Pay Cell) Department
dated 26.02.2011.
6. In the said G.O., the State Government had stated that, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2109 of 2018 etc. batch
anomalies arising out of fixation of pay by the One Man Commission
have to be rectified and therefore they appointed a Committee headed by
R.Thiagarajan, I.A.S., Special Secretary to Finance Department as
Chairman of the Pay Grievance Redressal Cell and the said Committee
was directed to receive representations and to redress genuine grievance
within a period of 3 months.
7. It is to be noted that, in the said G.O.(Ms).No.71, it has also
been stated by the Government that, until the Committee's Report is
implemented, the earlier scale granted based upon the One Man
Commission headed by the Rajeev Ranjan, I.A.S. was cancelled.
8. Therefore, those employees who had received the revised pay as
per earlier Government Orders like G.O.(Ms).No.312 pursuant to the One
Man Commission's Recommendation since have been stopped by virtue
of G.O.(Ms)No.71 dated 26.02.2011, some of those employees had filed
writ petitions challenging the validity of G.O.(Ms).No.71 dated
26.02.2011 stopping the benefit that has already been started giving to
those employees.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2109 of 2018 etc. batch
9. The first writ petition in that batch was W.P.No.7006 of 2011
etc. batch. Those writ petitions were disposed by the Writ Court on
08.03.2012 where the learned Judge had dismissed all those writ petitions
as misconceived.
10. As against which, the affected employees filed intra Court
appeals in W.A.Nos.504 of 2012 etc. batch.
11. When the said writ appeals etc. batch were pending
consideration before the Division Bench of this Court, the Government
had issued subsequent Government Orders in G.O.(Ms).No.242 dated
22.07.2013 that was also under challenge in another set of writ petitions,
which were holding by the Writ Court.
12. When that being so, when the hearing was taken up by the
Division Bench in W.A.No.504 of 2012 etc. batch, those writ petitions
challenging G.O.(Ms).No.242 pending before the Writ Court also were
taken together i.e., tagged along with the writ appeals and those writ
appeals as well as the writ petitions were disposed by a common
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 27.02.2014, where
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2109 of 2018 etc. batch
the Division Bench has reversed the order passed by the Writ Court,
however was pleased to appoint an Administrator who was a former
Chief Justice of a High Court. Aggrieved over the said order passed by
the Division Bench, the employees Association as well as the Government
preferred Special Leave Petition which has been converted in Civil
Appeals No.10029 of 2017. In the meanwhile, the State Government had
issued a proceedings dated 31.10.2017 i.e., after the implementation of
the 7th Pay Commission where the Government imposed a condition to the
employees that, insofar as the employees who want to get the benefit of
the 7th Pay Commission Recommendations and the revision of pay, they
have to accept the Government Orders, which were issued by the
Government with regard to the 6th Pay Commission implementation, that
means the subject matter that was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has to be accepted by the employees then only they would be
eligible to get the benefit to be given to them under the 7th Pay
Commission Recommendation.
13. Those proceedings issued by the State Government dated
31.10.2017 were under challenge in the present batch of writ petitions
i.e., W.P.No.29097 of 2017 etc. batch. The said writ petitions were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2109 of 2018 etc. batch
grouped together and disposed by the Writ Court in a common order
dated 04.06.2018 where those writ petitions were allowed. Aggrieved
over the same, the present set of intra Court appeals have been directed.
14. Subsequently, on 28.11.2019 the Hon'ble Supreme Court
disposed those Civil Appeals No.10029 of 2017 etc. batch, where inter
alia the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed the following order:
“21.6. It is further directed:
a) Within a week from today, the State Government
shall issue appropriate orders constituting the PGRC as
stated above.
b) Within a week thereafter, the State Government
shall make appropriate and adequate arrangements and
provide office space befitting the status of the Chairperson
and other Members and also provide adequate staff,
secretarial assistance and other facilities.
c) Within two weeks of the constitution of the PGRC all the
individuals/associations concerned shall file their
representations. No representation filed beyond the period of
two weeks shall ordinarily be accepted by the PGRC.
d) Direction (iv) issued by the Division Bench shall
stand modified to the aforesaid extent.
e) These directions are in addition to and in further
elaboration of direction (vii) issued by the Division Bench.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2109 of 2018 etc. batch
22. It is clarified that regardless of the decision to be
taken by the PGRC, any amount paid by way of financial
benefit extended to and enjoyed by the employees concerned
shall not be recovered i.e. to say that in case the decision in
pursuance of the recommendations of PGRC results in
reduction in pay scales or emoluments as were granted
pursuant to G.Os. dated 26.08.2010, such reduction shall be
prospective in application from the day the recommendations
of PGRC come into effect.
23. It must be stated that the recommendations of the
7th Central Pay Commission have since been made and the
issue regarding implementation of such recommendations is
presently under active consideration. The present matters
which pertain to the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay
Commission therefore need to be resolved at the earliest. In
the circumstances, we request PGRC to conclude the entire
exercise within four months from today. By way of
clarification, it is added that the affected categories shall not
be permitted to migrate to the 7th Central Pay Commission
scales on the basis of the higher scales till such time as the
final decision is taken.
24. Lastly, it is clarified that the observations in the
present order have been made purely from the standpoint of
consideration whether the decision of the State Government
in constituting the PGRC was correct or not and not by way
of reflection on merits of the matter. The matter shall be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2109 of 2018 etc. batch
considered by PGRC and the State Government purely on
merits and uninfluenced by any of the observations made by
us.
25. With the aforesaid directions these appeals are
disposed of without any order as to costs.”
15. As per the said order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, within a
week from the date of the order, the State Government shall issue an
appropriate orders constituting a Pay Grievance Redressal Cell and the
Pay Grievance Redressal Cell (in short 'PGRC') to conclude the entire
exercise within four months from the date of receipt of the order.
16. In implementation of the said order passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, the State Government appointed a former Chief Justice of
the High Court as Chairman of the PGRC and the said PGRC having
deliberated the issue, has given its recommendations to the State
Government which had been pending consideration. In order to
implement the same, the Government issued series of Government Orders
from G.O.(Ms).Nos.399 to 422 dated 12.11.2020 Finance (Pay Cell)
Department dated 12.11.2020, in fact that Government Orders also are
put under challenge in a separate batch of writ petitions which are still
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2109 of 2018 etc. batch
pending before this Court.
17. By tracing the aforestated history of the issue which are before
us in this batch of writ appeals atleast one round of litigation is over
where a quietus had been given and pursuant to the orders passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court appointing a PGRC, report has been submitted
based on which Government issued series of Government Orders,
therefore to that extent it reached the finality, therefore whether the
present Government Orders i.e., G.O.(Ms).Nos.399 to 422 dated
12.11.2020 would be sustained or not, is the matter altogether to be
decided in the pending writ petitions.
18. However, insofar as the present appeals are concerned, since
these appeals arise out of the order passed by the Writ Court dated
04.06.2018 where the proceedings issued by the State Government dated
31.10.2017 were under challenge and those issues since got merged with
the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, pursuant to which, now
it is concluded under G.O.(Ms)Nos.399 to 422 as stated supra, we deem
it appropriate to hold that, nothing survives in this batch of writ appeals
to be adjudicated further. In view of the above, all these Writ Appeals are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2109 of 2018 etc. batch
dismissed by holding so.
19. We make it clear that, the dismissal of these writ appeals
would not make prejudice the interest of both parties as the new issue as
of now since has again come up before this Court challenging the
G.O.(Ms).Nos.399 to 422 dated 12.11.2020, therefore it goes without
saying that, the parties to abide by the orders to be made by the Writ
Court in the pending writ petitions challenging the aforesaid Government
Orders. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
[R.S.K., J.] [G.A.M. J.]
16.10.2023
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
Sgl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2109 of 2018 etc. batch
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
Sgl
W.A.Nos.2109 to 2150 of 2018
16.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
