Madras High Court
A.Sornaprathaban vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 13 August, 2024
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
W.P(MD).No.21952 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ORDER RESERVED ON : 09.08.2024
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 13.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P.(MD).No.21952 of 2023
A.Sornaprathaban ....Petitioner
Vs
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Revenue and Disaster Management Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009
2.The Principal Secretary to Government
P & AR Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009
3.The District Collector
Nagercoil
Kanyakumari District ...Respondents
Prayer : This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling records of the first
respondent ie. the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue and
Disaster Management Department, Chennai in Government in G.O(1D).No.
595 Revenue and Disaster Management Department dated 31.07.2023 and
quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent ie. the Additional
Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management
Department, Chennai to refix the scale of the petitioner as per the pay last
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.P(MD).No.21952 of 2023
drawn in the cadre of Assistant in the Rural Development Department with
consequent increments and arrears of monetary benefits may also be given to
him, within the time stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Visvalingam
For Respondents : Mr.S.Shaji Bino
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The instant writ petition has been filed by a Revenue Inspector seeking
to quash the order dated 31.07.2023 wherein his request for pay protection
considering his service as Assistant in the Rural Development Department
has been rejected.
(A) Factual background:
2.The writ petitioner herein was originally appointed through TNPSC
as a typist in Rural Welfare Department in Tirupur District. Thereafter, he was
promoted as Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.5200/- + Rs.2800/- G.P. Later, he
appeared for Grade II Subordinate Services through TNPSC Examination and
got appointed as a Revenue Assistant in Kanyakumari District on
22.12.2012.
3.The grievance of the writ petitioner is that while he was working as
an Assistant in the Rural Development Department, his last drawn pay was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rs.6970/- + Rs.2800/-. However on being appointed as Revenue Assistant in
Revenue Department, his pay scale was fixed at Rs.5200/- + R.2800/- Grade
Pay. Therefore, the petitioner has sent a representation to the third
respondent. The third respondent has forwarded the same to the first
respondent. In turn, the first respondent has directed the third respondent to
consider the request of the writ petitioner and pass orders. Pursuant to the
direction of the first respondent, the third respondent has passed an order on
17.12.2015 rejecting the request of the writ petitioner. Challenging the said
order, the petitioner had filed W.P(MD).No.20160 of 2016. This Court by an
order dated 11.10.2022 had directed the first respondent to consider the
request of the writ petitioner and pass orders within a period of six weeks.
Pursuant to the order of this Court, the respondents herein had passed the
impugned order rejecting the request of the writ petitioner on the ground that
the petitioner is not eligible for granting relaxation. This order is under
challenge in the present writ petition.
(B) Contentions of the counsels:
4.According to the writ petitioner, the Government had issued
G.O.Ms.No.85, Personnel & Administrative Reforms (F.R.I) Department
dated 20.02.1990 granting relaxation to some of the employees and therefore,
a similar benefit should be extended to him.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5.The learned counsel for the writ petitioner had relied upon a order of
this Court in WP(MD).No.11858 of 2010 dated 12.01.2017 ( B.Suresh -vs-
The Principal Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat
Raj (E7) Department and others) wherein this Court has directed the
authorities to grant regularization to certain set of employees and grant pay
benefits. The learned counsel had also relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble
Division Bench in WA(MD).No.1832 of 2018, dated 04.12.2018 to contend
that the pay protection granted by the writ Court was confirmed by the
Hon'ble Division Bench. Relying upon the said decision, the learned counsel
for the petitioner had prayed for pay protection to the writ petitioner for the
post of Revenue Assistant in the Revenue Department.
6.Per contra, the Special Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents herein had contended that the petitioner is not entitled for any
pay protection in view of Rule 22-B(6) of the Tamil Nadu Government
Fundamental Rules. The petitioner's request seeking relaxation has been
rejected by the Government. The relaxation granted to some of the employees
under G.O.Ms.No.85 Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department
dated 20.02.1990 is restricted to Junior Assistants who were appointed
through TNPSC for the recruitment year 1983 to 1986. The petitioner having
been appointed in the year 2009, is not eligible for the benefit of the said
Government Order. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused
the material records.
(C) Discussion:
8.The petitioner was working as an Assistant in the Rural Development
Department and through TNPSC, he got selected to Grade-II post namely
Revenue Assistant. While he was working as an Assistant in the Rural
Development Department, he was drawing a sum of Rs.6970+ Rs.2800 G.P.
However, when he joined as Revenue Assistant in the Revenue Department
which fallen under Grade-II service, his pay scale was fixed at Rs.5200/- +
Rs.2800/- G.P. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that when he joined the
Revenue Department without any break-in-service, pay protection should
have been granted and he should have been conferred with the pay scale of
Rs..6970/- + Rs.2800/- G.P.
9.A perusal of Rule 22-B(6) of the Fundamental Rules reveals that if a
Government servant is already in service, on his appointment to another post
through TNPSC by direct recruitment, the said Government servant should be
allowed to draw the minimum of the level in the pay matrix or as provided in
the service rules relating to such appointments. It further reveals that the
fixation of pay under Rule 22 or 22-B of Fundamental Rules is not
admissible. Therefore, it is clear that Fundamental Rules do not permit pay
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
protection for such kind of employees. Unless the Government grants
relaxation from the said Rules, the petitioner would not be entitled to pay
protection.
10.The petitioner had relied upon G.O.Ms.No.85 Personnel and
Administrative Reforms Department, dated 20.02.1990 where a Fundamental
Rule 22-B(6) has been relaxed. A perusal of the said Government order
reveals that it is applicable only through TNPSC recruitment of
Typist/Personnel Clerks /Junior Assistants for the recruitment year between
1983 to 1986. The petitioner has been recruited through TNPSC to the Rural
Development Department in the year 2009. Therefore, the said Government
Order is not applicable to him. The other judgements cited by the learned
counsel for the writ petitioner relate to regularization of temporary services in
the previous post and therefore, they are not applicable to the facts of the
present case.
11.In view of the above said facts, there are no merits in the writ
petition and the same stands dismissed. No costs.
13 .08.2024.
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
msa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Revenue and Disaster Management Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009
2.The Principal Secretary to Government
P & AR Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009
3.The District Collector
Nagercoil
Kanyakumari District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
msa
Pre-delivery order made in
13.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
