Madras High Court
Unknown vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 4 March, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
2024:MHC:1339
W.P.No.29067 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.03.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.P.No.29067 of 2019
1.N.Loganathan
2.S.Velu-II
3.G.Basker
4.K.R.Pandiyan
5.J.Sajahan
6.M.Ramesh-II
7.P.Sundaramurthy
8.K.K.Kumaran
9.V.Sundaramurthy
10.Y.Baskar
11.R.Nataraj
12.A.J.Dhamu
13.A.M.Thirunavukarasu
14.M.Navanithakrishnan
15.L.Murugan
16.P.Muruthi
17.T.Venkatesan
18.R.Prem Kumar
19.A.Mohan
20.P.Vijaya Kumar
21.M.Dayalaganesh
22.M.Soma Sundharam
23.M.Sankar
Page No.1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.29067 of 2019
24.F.C.Irfan Basha
25.M.Loganathan
26.C.Krishnamoorthi
27.J.Kannan
28.A.Kanmani Dass
29.G.Subbiah Kannan
30.R.Santhankumar
31.T.Kumaresan
32.M.Stephen
33.A.Murugan
34.G.Ramesh Babu
35.S.Ladees Melvin ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
Home Department,
Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Deputy Secretary to Government,
Finance Department,
Fort St.George, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
3.The Registrar General,
High Court,
Madras – 600 104. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of
the 2nd respondent herein relating to letter No.23190/PC-3/2019 dated
19.06.2019, order in G.O.Ms.No.234 Finance (PC) Department dated
01.06.2009 of the 2nd respondent and the letter of the 1st respondent in
Page No.2 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.29067 of 2019
Government letter No.63305/PC/2010-1 dated 08.11.2010 and quash the
same and direct the respondents herein to grant similar pay structure for the
selection grade on par with the selection grade/special grade drivers between
01.01.2006 and 31.05.2009 with arrears from the date on which the
petitioners moved to selection grade with interest thereon.
(Prayer amended vide order dated 29.09.2020 made in W.M.P.No.
17233/2020 in W.P.No.29067 of 2019 by CJ, SKRJ)
For Petitioners : Mr.AR.Karthik Lakshmanan
for Mr.C.Santhoshkumar
For R1 and R2 : Mr.U.M.Ravichandran
Special Government Pleader
For R3 : Mr.M.Santhana Raman
ORDER
(Order of this Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.)
The amended prayer sought for in the present writ petition is to call for
the records of the 2nd respondent relating to letter No.23190/PC-3/2019 dated
19.06.2019, order in G.O.Ms.No.234 Finance (PC) Department dated
01.06.2009 and the letter of the 1st respondent in Government letter
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
No.63305/PC/2010-1 dated 08.11.2010 and quash the same and direct the
respondents herein to grant similar pay structure for the selection grade on
par with the selection grade/special grade drivers between 01.01.2006 and
31.05.2009 with arrears from the date on which the petitioners moved to
selection grade with interest thereon.
2. All the petitioners are serving as Drivers in the High Court of
Madras. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were awarded with Selection
Grade from the year 2010 onwards. None of the petitioner was awarded with
the Selection Grade during the cut off period from 01.01.2006 and
31.05.2009.
2.1 The claim of the writ petitioners are that they are entitled to get
Grade Pay on par with the Drivers, who were awarded Selection Grade in
between 01.01.2006 and 31.05.2009 (Prior to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.234
Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 01.06.2009.)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.2 G.O.Ms.No.234 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated
01.06.2009 was issued implementing the recommendations of the Official
Committee on revision of pay and allowances etc., The said order was issued
on 01.06.2009. On the date of issuance of the revised Pay Rules, the
petitioners were not awarded with the Selection Grade/Special Grade.
2.3 The question arises whether the petitioners are entitled to claim
revised Grade Pay on par with the Drivers who are awarded Selection
Grade/Special Grade in between 01.01.2006 and 31.05.2009?
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the
petitioners are also similarly placed persons. Though they were granted
Selection Grade from the year 2010 onwards, in the matter of Grade Pay they
cannot be discriminated. There is no rationale behind fixation of cut off date
for grant of Grade Pay and thus, the order impugned passed by the
Government in proceedings dated 19.06.2019 is to be set aside.
4. Regarding the fixation of cut off date in economic
policy/fixation of pay, the Government is empowered to fix such cut off
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
dates. The principles laid down in D.S.Nakara's case was watered down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments.
4.1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Ali
Imam and others Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2020) 5 Supreme Court
Cases 685 held as follows:
“.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents
have pointed out that much water flowed after that judgment
and inter alia, invited our attention to the judgment in State of
W.B. V. Ratan Behari Dey (referred to in the impugned
judgment itself) opining that it is open to the State or the
Corporation to change the conditions of service unilaterally,
and terminal benefits as well as pensionary benefits constitute
conditions of service. Thus, the power to revise salaries
and/or pay scales, as also terminal benefits/pensioners
benefit can be made as a concomitant of that power so long
as the date is specified in a reasonable manner.”
9. .....
10. .....
11.Apart from this, there may be other considerations in the
mind of the executive authority while fixing a particular date
i.e. economic conditions, financial constraints, administrative
and other circumstances, and if no reason is forthcoming
from the executive for fixation of a particular date, it should
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
not be interfered with by the Court unless the cut-off date
leads to some blatantly capricious or outrageous result. In
such cases, it has been opined that there must be exercise of
judicial restraint and such matters ought to be left to the
executive authorities, to fix the cut-off date, and the
Government thus, must be left with some leeway and free play
at the joints in this connection. Even if no particular reasons
are given for the cut-off date by the Government, the choice
of cut-off date cannot be held to be arbitrary (unless, it is
shown to be totally capricious or whimsical)-State of A.P. v.
N.Subbarayudu.
4.2 In the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh and others Vs.
N.Subbarayudu and Others reported in 2008 14 SCC 702, the Apex Court
ruled as follows:
“5.In a catena of decisions of this Court it has been
held that the cut-off date is fixed by the executive authority
keeping in view the economic conditions, financial
constraints and many other administrative and other
attending circumstances. This Court is also of the view that
fixing cut-off dates is within the domain of the executive
authority and the court should not normally interfere with the
fixation of cut-off date by the executive authority unless such
order appears to be on the face of it blatantly discriminatory
and arbitrary.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. No doubt in D.S.Nakara V.Union of India this Court
had struck down the cut-off date in connection with the
demand of pension. However, in subsequent decisions this
Court has considerably watered down the rigit view taken in
Nakara case as observed in para 29 of the decision of this
Court in State of Punjab V. Amar Nath Goyal.
7. There may be various consideration in the mind of
the executive authorities due to which a particular cut-off
date has been fixed. These considerations can be financial,
administrative or other considerations. The court must
exercise judicial restraint and must ordinarily leave it to the
executive authorities to fix the cut-off date. The Government
must be left with some leeway and free play at the joints in
this connection.
8. In fact several decisions of this Court have gone to
the extent of saying that the choice of a cut-off date cannot be
dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular reason is given for
the same in the counter-affidavit filed by the Government
(unless it is shown to be totally capricious or whimsical), vide
State of Buhar V. Ramjee Prasad, Union of India v. Sudhir
Kumar Jaiswal (vide SCC para 5), Ramrao v. All India
Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Assn. (vide SCC
para 31), University Grants Commission v. Sadhana
Chaudhary, etc. It follows, therefore, that even if no reasons
has been given in the counter-affidavit of the Government or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the executive authority as to why a particular cut-off date has
been chosen, the court must still not declare that date to be
arbitrary and violative of Article 14 unless the said cut-off
date leads to some blatantly capricious or outrageous result.
9. As has been held by this Court in Aravali Golf Club
v. Chander Hass and in Govt. of A.P. v. P.Laxmi Devi the
Court must maintain judicial restraint in matters relating to
the legislative or executive domain.”
4.3 In the case of State of Tripura and others Vs. Anjana
Bhattacharjee and others reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1071, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
17. When specific statistics were provided before the
High Court justifying its policy decision and the financial
crunch/financial constraint was pleaded, there was no reason
for the High Court to doubt the same. As such the findings
recorded by the High Court in the impugned judgment and
order is contrary to the averments made in affidavit filed on
behalf of the State Government. From the affidavit filed
before the High Court reproduced hereinabove, we are
satisfied that a conscious policy decision was taken by the
State Government to grant the benefit of revision of pension
notionally from 01.01.2006 or from the date of
superannuation till 31.12.2008 and to pay/grant the benefit of
revision of pension actually from 01.01.2009. which was
based on their financial crunch/financial constraint.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
18. Whether the financial crunch/financial constraint
due to additional financial burden can be a valid ground to
fix a cut-off date for the purpose of granting the actual benefit
of revision of pension/pay has been dealt with and/or
considered by this Court in the case of Amar Nath Goyal
(supra). In the aforesaid decision, it is observed and held as
under:-
“26.It is difficult to accede to the argument on behalf
of the employees that a decision of the Central
Government/State Governments to limit the benefits only to
employees, who retire or die on or after 01.04.1995, after
calculating the financial implications thereon, was either
irrational or arbitrary. Financial and economic implications
are very relevant and germane for any policy decision
touching the administration of the Government, at the Centre
or at the State level.
XXX XXX XXX
32. The importance of considering financial
implications, while providing benefits for employees, has
been noted by this Court in numerous judgments including
the following two cases: In State of Rajasthan v. Amrit Lal
Gandhi [(1997) 2 SCC 342 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 512 : AIR 1997
SC 782] this Court went so as far as to note that:
“Financial impact of making the Regulations
retrospective can be the sole consideration while fixing a cut-
off date. In our opinion, it cannot be said that this cut-off date
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
was fixed arbitrarily or without any reason. The High Court
was clearly in error in allowing the Writ Petitions and
substituting the date of 01.01.1986-01.01.1990.”
33. More recently, in Veerasamy [(1999) 3 SCC 414 :
1999 SCC (L&S) 717] this Court observed that, financial
constraints could be a valid ground for introducing a cut-off
date while implementing a pension scheme on a revised basis
[supra fn 2 SCC at p.421 (para 15).]. In that case, the
pension scheme applied differently to persons who had
retired from service before 01.07.1986, and those who were
in employment on the said date. It was held that they could
not be treated alike as they did not belong to one class and
they formed separate classes.”
19. In the aforesaid decision this Court after
considering the earlier decisions of this Court in the cases of
State of Punjab v. Boota Singh (2000) 3 SCC 733 and State of
Punjab v.J.L.Gupta, (2000) 3 SCC 736, it is specifically
observed and held that for grant of additional benefit, which
had financial implications, the prescription of a specific
future date for conferment of additional benefit, could not be
considered arbitrary.
20. In the subsequent decision in Bihar Pensioners
Samaj (supra), the decision in the case of Amar Nath Goyal
(supra) is followed and it is observed and held that financial
constraints could be a valid ground for introducing a cut-off
date while introducing a pension scheme on revised basis. It
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
is further observed and held by this Court in the aforesaid
decision that fixing of a cut-off date for granting of benefits is
well within the powers of the Government as long as the
reasons therefor are not arbitrary and are based on some
rational consideration.”
5. In view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court, the
ground raised by the petitioners that the cut off date fixed by the Government
is in consonance with the legal principles. It is not in dispute that the
petitioners are not falling within the cut off date fixed by the Government for
extending the benefit of enhanced Grade Pay, since the petitioners were
awarded Selection Grade from the year 2010 onwards. However, the benefit
of enhanced Grade Pay of Rs.2,400/- was issued to the Drivers, who were
awarded Selection Grade/Special Grade between 01.01.2006 and 31.05.2009.
Pertinently, from 01.06.2009 onwards the Revised Pay Scale came in to
force, pursuant to the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.234 Finance
(Pay Cell) Department dated 01.06.2009. That being the position, the claim
of the petitioners is beyond the scope of the Pay Rules in force and such a
new claim in financial matters cannot be considered by the High Court in a
Writ Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
[S.M.S.J.] [K.R.S.J.]
04.03.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
veda
To
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
Home Department,
Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Deputy Secretary to Government,
Finance Department,
Fort St.George, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
3.The Registrar General,
High Court,
Madras – 600 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
AND
K.RAJASEKAR,J.
veda
Order in
04.03.2024
(3/3)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
