Madras High Court
M. Swamikkannu vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 4 September, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.09.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C. V. KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.No.18369 of 2017
M. Swamikkannu
.. Petitioner
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government,
Finance Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Secretary,
Differently Abled Welfare Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
3.The Commissioner,
Differently Abled Welfare Department,
Lady Wellington College Compound,
Chennai – 600 005.
4.Assistant Special Officer,
O/o. the Commissioner,
Differently Abled Welfare Department,
Lady Wellington College Compound,
Chennai – 600 005.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
5.Administrative Officer,
Govt. Rehabilitation Home,
Paranur,
Chengalpattu,
Kancheepuram District,
PIN – 603 002.
.. Respondents
Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records of the 1st respondent pertaining to his order which is made in letter
No.48269/CMPC/2011-1 dated 08.03.2012 and quash the same,
consequently direct the respondents to revise and re-fix the pay of the
petitioner in the scale pay of Rs.4500-7000/- at par with the mechanics in
the Police Department, Medical Education, Medical Department and
Teachers (Instructors) in Social Defence Department and thereby to revice
and re-fix his retirement service benefits and to pay the arrears of pay and
allowances and retirement service benefits including arrears of pension to
the petitioner.
For Petitioner .. Mr. R. Malaichamy
For Respondents .. Mr. S. Ravikumar, SGP.
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed in the nature of Certiorarified
Mandamus seeking records of the 1st respondent dated 08.03.2012 and to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
quash the same and to direct the respondents to revise and re-fix the pay of
the petitioner in the scale pay of 4,500/- to 7,000/- at par with the mechanics
in the Police Department, Medical Education, Medical Department and
Teachers (Instructors) in Social Defence Department.
2.The writ petitioner was the President of Government Rehabilitation
Home Staff Union at Paranur in Government Rehabilitation Home,
Chengalpet in Kancheepuram District. The said Union, had originally filed
O.A.No.3738 of 2003 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal
seeking a direction to consider their representation with respect to the pay
scale of Electrician Grade – II in the Social Welfare Department. It was
contended that the nature of work done by Electrician Grade – II was the
same, as that of other electricians in other departments. It was their
grievance that other electricians were earning higher scale and therefore
parity of pay with Electricians Grade – II in other departments was sought.
The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by an order dated 20.08.2003 had
directed consideration of the said representation. Thereafter, a further
representation was given by the Union. The Union then filed W.P.No.31950
of 2005 dated 12.06.2008 seeking the same relief. That writ petition came to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
be dismissed by an order dated 12.06.2008. The Union then filed
W.A.No.79 of 2009. That came up for consideration before a Division
Bench and by an order dated 28.06.2011, the Division Bench had finally
directed the respondents therein to consider the claim of the Union in the
light of the letter of the Chief Superintendent dated 02.03.2004 and the
observations made in the course of the judgment and pass appropriate
orders. They also stated that fixation of pay should be examined by the
Expert Committee. It has also observed that the pay structure of similarly
placed Mat Weaving Instructors, Tailoring Instructors working in the other
departments should also be examined.
3.The impugned order then came to be passed on 08.03.2012.
Questioning the impugned order, the Union had not filed the present writ
petition, but separating himself from the Union, the President had filed the
present writ petition seeking relief for his individual self. It is stated by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that all the members of the Union had
retired, leaving the petitioner alone to espouse the case further. The
petitioner had also incidentally, retired from service.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.A counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the 5th respondent.
The learned Special Government Pleader pointed out that the Chief
Superintendent, whose letter dated 02.03.2004 was sought to be examined
in the directions of the Division Bench, was not the rule making authority or
decision making authority relating to pay revisions. It was contended by the
learned Special Government Pleader that the Government alone which is
competent and empowered to decide the pay scale. It was also stated in the
counter that the claims of the petitioner over the pay scales existing in other
departments and also in the teaching side are not within the domain of the
Chief Superintendent to decide.
5.In the impugned order, very specifically it is stated that at the time
of appointment, the petitioner had held the post of Electrician Grade – II.
There was no further promotional post. Therefore, the One Man
Commission, 1998 had recommended that all Grade – II teaching posts
such as Instructors may be placed uniformly in the pay scale of Rs.4500 –
7000. It is stated that the post of Mat Weaving Instructor was placed on par
with that of the other Grade – II Instructors i.e at Rs.4500 – 7000. However,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
it was contended that the petitioner's post was not a teaching post and comes
under Trade post, for which the qualification is ITI, Trade certificate. It was
stated that all Grade – II Trade posts in all Government departments were
granted uniform scale of pay of Rs.3050 – 4590 with effect from 01.01.1996
and therefore, the petitioner cannot be granted a different pay scale.
6.I have carefully considered the arguments advanced.
7.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
originally, the Union, Government Rehabilitation Home Staff of which the
petitioner was President had filed W.P.No.31950 of 2005. That was
dismissed by an order dated 12.06.2008. Thereafter, the said Union filed a
writ appeal in W.A.No.79 of 2009. A direction was given that their
representation should be considered. The Union also filed a contempt
petition. But unfortunately, in the meanwhile, the present impugned order
came to be passed. The claim of the petitioner is that, the petitioner as
Electrician Grade – II was doing the same nature of work as that of others in
Police Department, Medical Education, Medical Department and Teachers
(Instructors) in Social Defence Department.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8.It was therefore contended that the petitioner should be granted the
pay scale of Rs.4500 – 7000. In this connection, strong reliance is placed on
the letter of the Chief Superintendent, who had so recommended by a letter
dated 02.03.2004. However, in the present writ petition, the said Chief
Superintendent is not made as a party to the writ petition. He is not available
to inform, as to the basis on which he so recommended on 02.03.2004 that
the Union namely, Government Rehabilitation Home Staff Union, should be
considered on par with the other departments.
9.In the impugned order there a distinction had been drawn between
Instructors / Teaching staff and Trade posts. The distinction is that the
Electrician Grade – II, who instruct or rather who could be treated as
Instructors or teaching staff, had been placed under the pay scale of
Rs.4500 - 7000 by recommendation of the One Man Commission.
However, the petitioner and the Union members come under the category of
Trade post, for which the qualification is only ITI, Trade Certificate. They
cannot act as Instructors or Teachers. For them the pay scale across all
departments is Rs.3050 – 4590. That is the scale, which has been granted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
It is therefore seen that the petitioner cannot be given a separate dispensation
and be treated differently from others who are also in the Trade post
category.
10.The only main reason contented on behalf of the petitioner is again
the letter dated 02.03.2004 of the Chief Superintendent and unfortunately,
for some reasons, he is not a party here to justify the reason why he had
issued that particular letter. It is the very specific contention by the
respondents that he is not a rule making authority and cannot decide the pay
structure.
11.In view of these reasons, I hold that the petitioner coming under
the Trade post category, cannot claim parity with those who come under the
Instructor category. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No
costs.
04.09.2023
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
Speaking order: Yes/No
smv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Finance Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Secretary,
Differently Abled Welfare Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
3.The Commissioner,
Differently Abled Welfare Department,
Lady Wellington College Compound,
Chennai – 600 005.
4.Assistant Special Officer,
O/o. the Commissioner,
Differently Abled Welfare Department,
Lady Wellington College Compound,
Chennai – 600 005.
5.Administrative Officer,
Govt. Rehabilitation Home,
Paranur,
Chengalpattu,
Kancheepuram District,
PIN – 603 002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
smv
W.P.No.18369 of 2017
04.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
