Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs S.Shanmugham Pillai on 2 January, 2025
W.A.(MD) No.2613 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 02.01.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
W.A.(MD) No.2613 of 2024
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.18215 of 2024
1.The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (KMB) Ltd.,
27, New Railway Station Road
Kumbakonam-612 001
2.The General Manager
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (KMB) Ltd.,
Karaikudi Region
Maruthupathi
Managiri Post
Karaikudi
Sivagangai District ... Appellants
-vs-
S.Shanmugham Pillai ... Respondent
____________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.2613 of 2024
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the
order, dated 08.12.2023, passed in W.P.(MD) No.28930 of 2023, on the file of
this Court.
For Appellants : Mr.L.Jeen Felix
For Respondent : Mr.K.Gokul
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.]
Challenging the order dated 08.12.2023, passed in W.P.(MD) No.
28930 of 2023, the Transport Corporation has preferred this writ appeal.
2. Mr.K.Gokul, learned counsel, takes notice for the respondent.
3. The first respondent herein filed the writ petition seeking
refixation of pay by claiming that he is entitled for revision of pay fixation by
adopting multiplier method as suggested by the Arbitrator Mr.Justice
Padmanaban (Retired), who has recommended the multiplier of 2.44 factor.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The learned Single Judge found that the respondent is entitled
for the relief sought for by him, as in similar circumstances, this Court, has
granted the relief sought for by the similarly placed person. Challenging the
same, this writ appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
6. On perusal of the materials available on record, we find that the
the learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition filed by the
respondent, has taken into consideration the fact that as per the Tamil Nadu
Revised Pay Rules, 2017, the respondent is eligible and entitled for refixation
of pay by adopting different multipliers / matrix as per VII Pay Commissioner.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit
that since the respondent is a Senior Assistant, he does not fall within the
scope of the recommendations of the Arbitrator.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. However, similar point has been considered by this Court, vide
Judgment dated 04.07.2024, in W.A.(MD) No.1099 of 2024, wherein it has
been observed as follows:
“9.In the instant case, the Writ Petitioner/first
respondent, who was originally appointed as Clerk on
16.06.1980, was promoted from the post of Senior
Assistant to the post of Superintendent on
04.03.2017. The vehement contention of the learned
Counsel for the appellants that since 2016 wage
settlement was made applicable with effect from
01.09.2016 and the first respondent was promoted
on 04.03.2017 itself, he is covered under G.O(Ms)No.
330, dated 31.10.2018 and therefore, the pay can be
fixed only by adopting 2.44 multiplier, is liable to be
rejected for the simple reason that even though the
2016 wage settlement was made applicable with
effect from 01.09.2016, the monetary benefits of the
2016-wage settlement was given effect to only from
01.09.2017. By the date on which, 2016-wage
settlement was effected, ie., on 01.09.2017, the first
respondent/Writ Petitioner had already been
promoted on 04.03.2017 itself. In other words, only
after the first respondent/Writ Petitioner got promotion
on 04.03.2017, the 2016-wage settlement was given
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
effect monetarily from 01.09.2017. Since on the date
of giving effect of the 2016-wage settlement, the Writ
Petitioner had got promotion, he was not given the
benefits of the 2016- wage settlement.
10.When G.O.(Ms)No.330, dated 31.10.2018,
makes it clear that only the employees, who have
been migrated cadre to Government scale of pay, even
after 01.06.2016, who get the benefit of 2016 wage
settlement, those pay shall be fixed by adopting 2.44
multiplier. Here, admittedly, when the first
respondent/Writ Petitioner was not given the benefits
of 2016-wage settlement and he had been promoted
to the supervisory cadre on 04.03.2017 itself, the first
respondent is entitled for re-fixation of his pay by
adopting 2.57 multiplier/matrix by also taking into
account the 7th pay revision.”
9. In the said decision, we find that similar contentions as raised
by the appellants herein have been rejected by this Court and the order of the
learned Single Judge therein was directed to be implemented.
10. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the special leave
petition filed by the appellant – Transport Corporation challenging the above
Judgment of this Court has been disposed of.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11. In view of the settled position, the respondent is entitled to the
relief sought for in the writ petition and we find no ground to interfere with the
order passed by the learned Single Judge.
12. In the result, this writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[T.K.R., J.] [N.S., J.]
02.01.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
AND
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
krk
and
02.01.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
