Madras High Court
Samuel Issac [Died vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 6 February, 2025
Bench: S.S. Sundar, C.Saravanan
WA.No.3841/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
WA.No.3841/2019
1.Samuel Issac [Died]
2.Paripooranam
3.John Selvin Joseph
4.Esther Epcibah
5.Jancy Suganthy
6.Ida Jermimah ... Appellant
**Appellants 2 to 6 are substituted
as LRs of the deceased Sole appellant
vide order dated 22.11.2024 in
CMP.No.26566/2024 in WA.No.3841/2019
Vs.
1.The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
rep.by its Chairman, No.800, Anna Salai
Chennai 02.
2.The Chief Engineer [Personnel]
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.No.3841/2019
order dated 21.07.2011 passed in WP.No.12974/2006.
For Appellants : M/s.V.Pushpa
For Respondents : Mr.K.Rajkumar, Standing counsel
JUDGMENT
[Delivered by S.S.SUNDAR, J.,]
(1)This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.07.2011 dismissing the
writ petition filed by the deceased sole appellant in WP.No.12974/2006
praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to
fix the pay of the appellant at Rs.1,115/- from 01.01.1986 following
Regulation 6[2] of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Revised Scales of
Pay [Officers] Regulations, 1989 contained in [Permanent] B.P.[F.B.]
No.60, Secretariat Branch, dated 24.08.1989 and pay the arrears since the
fixation till date and other benefits. Since the writ petitioner/appellant
died during pendency of this appeal, his legal heirs are brought on record
as appellants 2 to 6.
(2)The writ petitioner joined the services of the Electricity Board on
06.03.1967 as Junior Assistant. One Mr.P.Elangovan also joined on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
same day as Junior Assistant. Since the pay of the said Elangovan was
fixed at Rs.4,115/-, with effect from 01.01.1986, it is contended by the
writ petitioner that he is also entitled to the same. Pointing out that the
pay anomaly is not supported by any valid reason, the writ petitioner filed
the writ petition. The learned Single Judge found that the said
P.Elangovan joined the service on the same day and took note of the
submission that writ petitioner was shown as senior to Mr.P.Elangovan.
Though the writ petitioner was promoted as Assistant on 01.10.1977 along
with his junior Mr.P.Elangovan, the learned Single Judge observed that
the deceased writ petitioner had not furnishing any details to compare him
with Mr.P.Elangovan. Since the details as to the incentives given to the
deceased writ petitioner, further qualification of his junior Mr.P.Elangovan
and punishment imposed if any, are not given, the learned Judge held that
the writ petitioner has not furnished necessary particulars. Finding that
the writ petitioner reached the age of superannuation even in the year
1997 and the writ petition was filed in the year 2006, after a lapse of 9
years, the learned Judge found that the writ petition is also liable to be
dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as well as for want of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
particulars.
(3)However, the fact reveals that the writ petitioner submitted a
representation well before his retirement on 30.04.2000. Learned Judge
has incorrectly recorded that the writ petitioner retired in 1997. The
representation of the deceased appellant/writ petitioner is found place in
the typed set of papers and the fact that the writ petitioner raised this issue
of pay anomaly before his retirement is not in dispute. The learned Judge
held that the writ petition is belated only on the assumption that the
appellant retired even in 1997. When the writ petitioner has submitted the
representation long before retirement and the writ petition itself was filed
in the year 2006, this Court is unable to accept the reasoning of the
learned Single Judge as the appellant was pursuing his remedy by
submitting several representations in the meanwhile.
(4)As a matter of fact, by a communication dated 01.04.2004, the
representation of the appellant was considered and he was asked to
furnish further particulars. Therefore, this Court is unable to sustain the
order of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition on the ground of
delay and laches.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(5)Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.R.Gupta Vs. Union
of India [1995 [5] SCC 628], has held as follows:-
''6........The claim to be paid the correct salary
computed on the basis of proper pay fixation is a right
which subsists during the entire tenure of service and
can be exercised at the time of each payment of the
salary when the employee is entitled to salary computed
correctly in accordance with the rules. This right of a
Government servant to be paid the correct salary
throughout his tenure according to the computation
made in accordance with the rules, is akin to the right
of redemption which is an incident of a subsisting
mortgage and subsists so long as the mortgage itself
subsists, unless the equity of redemption is
extinguished. It is settled that the right or redemption is
of this kind. [See Thota China Subba Rao Vs.
Mattapalli Raju AIR 1950 FC 1 : 50 Bom LR 181 :
1950 [1] MLJ 752].''
(6)On the merits of the appellants' case on pay anomaly, the respondents
have candidly admitted that there is pay anomaly. When pay anomaly is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
alleged by the appellant on the basis of pay that was given to his
immediate junior, it is for the respondents to examine on the basis of
service particulars. The respondents who were in a better position to
furnish particulars, have admitted before the learned Single Judge that
higher pay given to Mr.P.Ilangovan, was due to his application for higher
pay comparing the pay of his junior. When the pay anomaly is justified
by respondents by admitting that the higher salary to Mr.P.Elangovan was
on his representation to step up his pay by comparing his junior, this
Court is of the view that the writ petitioner is entitled to the relief.
Therefore, in the absence of any other reasons than the reasons stated by
the respondents, this Court is unable to sustain the order of the learned
Single Judge holding that the appellant is not entitled to any relief for
want of particulars.
(7)Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the
learned Singe Judge in dated 21.07.2011 made in WP.No.12974/2006.
However, the monetary benefits shall be calculated only from the date of
writ petition. No costs.
[S.S.S.R., J.] [C.S.N., J.]
06.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AP
Internet : Yes
To
1.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
No.800, Anna Salai
Chennai 02.
2.The Chief Engineer [Personnel]
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.S. SUNDAR, J.,
and
C.SARAVANAN, J.,
AP
06.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
