Madras High Court

R.Venkatesan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 November, 2024

                                                                                  W.P.No.15038 of 2022

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED : 19.11.2024

                                                       CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

                                               W.P.No.15038 of 2022


                     R.Venkatesan                                                     ... Petitioner

                                                           Vs.

                     1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
                       Rep by its Secretary,
                       School Education Department,
                       Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

                     2.The Commissioner,
                       School Education,
                       DPI Campus, Chennai 600 006.

                     3.The Joint Director,
                       School Education (Higher Secondary)
                       DPI Campus, Chennai 600 006.                                ... Respondents

                     Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
                     to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in Kaditha
                     (1D) 196 dated 11.10.2021 of the first respondent and quash the same and
                     accordingly, direct the respondents to extend the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.340
                     dated 26.08.2010 to the petitioner by refixing the pay scale of the petitioner
                     notionally from the date of appointment with monetary benefits from
                     01.08.2010 by multiplying basic pay of the petitioner with 1.86 by extending

                     Page 1 of 10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                       W.P.No.15038 of 2022

                     the benefit of fitment table as per Rule 4(1) of the Tamil Revised Scales of
                     Pay Rules 2009 as per the Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.22185 of 2021
                     dated 02.11.2021 by taking into consideration that others who were selected
                     with the petitioner were extended with the said benefit.


                                        For Petitioner    : Ms.Dakshayani Reddy

                                        For Respondents : Ms.Akila Rajendran, GA


                                                           ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed for quashment of the proceedings of

the first respondent in Kaditha (1D) 196 dated 11.10.2021 of the first

respondent and consequently, to direct the respondents to extend the benefit

of G.O.Ms.No.340 dated 26.08.2010 to the petitioner by refixing the pay

scale of the petitioner notionally from the date of appointment with monetary

benefits from 01.08.2010 by multiplying basic pay of the petitioner with 1.86

by extending the benefit of fitment table as per Rule 4(1) of the Tamil Revised

Scales of Pay Rules 2009 as per the Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.22185

of 2021 dated 02.11.2021 by taking into consideration that others who were

selected with the petitioner were extended with the said benefit.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2. Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the materials

available on record.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Teachers

Recruitment Board(TRB) called for applications to the post of P.G.Assistant

Chemistry for the year 2007-2008 and the petitioner applied for the same and

he was selected and called for certificate verification vide proceedings of the

TRB dated 29.05.2008. Since the petitioner possessed M.Sc Organic

Chemistry, he was directed to produce an equivalence certificate. He obtained

the equivalence certificate and produced the same. Since TRB did not grant

the appointment order to the petitioner, he was constrained to file a petition

before this Court in W.P.No.4030 of 2009. Pursuant to the order of this

Court, the petitioner was selected on 20.03.2009 and joined service with

effect from 18.06.2009. In the meanwhile, the Government issued

G.O.Ms.No.234, Finance Department, dated 01.06.2009 by adopting the VI

pay commission pay scales which came into effect from 01.01.2006. Since

monetary benefits is from 01.01.2006, the persons who were appointed

between 01.01.2006 5o 31.05.2009 got a higher scale of pay whereas the

persons who were appointed after 01.06.2009 were given lesser scale of pay.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Many individuals who were appointed between 01.01.2006 and 01.06.2009,

gave representations before the Government seeking to extend the benefit of

Rule 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay to them. After considering

the same, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.258, Finance Department,

dated 23.06.2009 extending the benefit of Rule 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu

Revised Scales of Pay. In some of the departments, all the persons like the

petitioner, who were selected prior to 01.06.2009 but appointed after

01.06.2009, were only given fixation of the new pay scale without extending

the benefit of multiplying factor. Therefore, the issue was referred to a One

Man Commission and the One Man Commission recommended to extend the

said benefits and the Government has also accepted the same and issued

G.O.Ms.No.340, dated 26.08.2010. The order of selection were issued as

early as on 20.03.2009, after production of the equivalence certificate. Due to

the administrative delay, the petitioner has been deprived of the extension of

the benefit, hence, he came up with the present petition to claim the said

benefits.

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents

submitted that the petitioner was appointed after the cut off date i.e.,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

01.06.2009 and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefits of

G.O.Ms.No.340, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 26.08.2010. She

further submitted that the petitioner is entitled only to the benefits after he has

joined duty and not before the said date and therefore, submits that neither

the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.340, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated

26.08.2010 nor the decision of the Madurai Bench of this Court in

W.P.(MD).No.15375 to 15383 of 2013, 1236 of 2014, 8913 and 8914 of

2018 dated 03.10.2019 can be applied to the facts of this case.

5. A similar issue was already dealt with by this Court in

W.P.No.22185 of 2021. By an order dated 02.11.2021, this Court held as

follows :

“11. The Government has specifically issued the above

G.O.Ms.No.340 to deal with the situation under contemplation in

this Writ Petition. Para 4 of the said Government Order reads as

under:

“4.Since the petitioners were not selected along with other candidates prior to 26.02.2009 and their appointment alone was postponed due to administrative reasons, the petitioners wanted the benefit of sixth pay commission, as per Government Order in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

G.O.Ms.No.340, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 26.08.2010. It is seen that the Agricultural Officers working in Agricultural Department have submitted a representation before the one man commission and the one man commission has examined the disparity in the pay recorded in March 2009 and May 2009 and those who joined on or after 01.06.2009. The recommendation of one man commission was that the pay for the persons who had been appointed after 01.06.2009 should also be the same as those who were appointed earlier and that they are eligible to avail the benefit of sixth pay commission based on the recommendation of the one man commission. The Government acknowledged the fact that the petitioners are also entitled to avail the benefit of sixth pay commission as the delay in appointment was due to administrative reasons.” The Government had itself recognised that certain person were put to disadvantage as they were recruited / appointed on a subsequent date, after 01.06.2009, due to administrative reasons and therefore, decided to allow the fitment benefit to these individual employees concerned as a special case. It has been clarified in paragraph 4 that the benefit will be given from the date of appointment of the individual employees concerned with monetary benefit from 01.08.2010.

12.The petitioners herein were appointed on various dates starting from 20.01.2010 and on various dates long after the above G.O.Ms.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

13.Facts of the case indicate that most of the petitioners have been appointed after the cut of date, as per G.O.Ms.No.340, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 26.08.2010. The Madurai Bench of this High Court on 03.10.2019 in W.P.(MD).Nos.15357 to 15383 of 2013, 1236 of 2014 and 38913 and 8914 of 2018 has noted that the benefits were extended by the Government even for those who were appointed in the year 2013.

14.The court has also observed that documents were produced before it to show that seven other person who were appointed after 01.06.2009 were given the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.340 Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 26.08.2010. Therefore, there cannot be any discrimination among these employees on account of the administrative delay in deputing them to various departments of the Government, after they cleared the exams and results were published on 16.07.2008.

The benefit of scheme in G.O.Ms.No.234 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 01.06.2009 has to be extended to person like petitioners vide G.O.Ms.No.340 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 26.08.2010. The petitioners deserve similar treatment, cannot be denied of the benefit.

15. In the light of the above discussion, this Writ Petition stands allowed, by directing the respondents to give benefits of G.O.Ms.No.340 , Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 26.08.2010 to the petitioners from the date of their appointment, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.”

6. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from blatant infirmities and

also cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

7. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 11.10.2021 passed

by the first respondent, is hereby quashed. Accordingly, this Writ Petition

stands allowed. The respondents are directed to give benefits of

G.O.Ms.No.340 , Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 26.08.2010 to the

petitioner from the date of his appointment, within a period of twelve weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

19.11.2024 vkr Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis