Madras High Court
The Principal Secretary To Government vs P.Govindarajulu ... 1St on 19 March, 2025
Bench: J.Nisha Banu, S.Srimathy
W.A(MD)No.570 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.A(MD)No.570 of 2025
and C.M.P(MD)Nos.4303 & 4304 of 2025
The Principal Secretary to Government,
Transport (E) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-9. ... Appellant/1st Respondent
-Vs-
1.P.Govindarajulu ... 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner
2.The Management of the Tamil Nadu
State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited,
Rep. by its Managing Director, Kumbakonam.
3.The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Kumbakonam) Limited,
Nagapattinam Region, Nagappatinam.
4.The Administrator,
The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
Employees Pension Fund Trust,
Thiruvalluvar Illam, Pallavan Salai,
Chennai-2. ... Respondents
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 12:59:20 pm )
W.A(MD)No.570 of 2025
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying this Court to
set aside the order dated 02.03.2023 made in W.P.(MD)No.4340 of 2020 on the
file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia,
Special Government Pleader
For R2 & R3 : Mr.K.Ramaiah,
Standing Counsel
For R4 : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
Standing Counsel
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by J.NISHA BANU, J.]
This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of this Court dated
02.03.2023 made in W.P.(MD)No.4340 of 2020. The said Writ Petition was heard
along with a batch of Writ Petitions and disposed of by a common order.
2.The Government revised the pay of its employees pursuant to the
recommendations of the 7th Pay Commission vide G.O.Ms.No.303, dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 12:59:20 pm )
11.10.2017. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.319, dated
26.10.2017, by which, the Government while deciding to extend the benefits to
the State Pubic Sector Undertakings, left it to the Board of Directors to consider
the financial position and implement the revised pay notionally from 01.01.2016
and with monetary benefit from 01.10.2017 or later and the Board was also given
the power to implement the pay revision/postponement of pay revision even to a
future date. Thereafter, each and every transport corporation placed the matter
before their respective Board of Directors and all the corporations had resolved to
adopt the G.O.Ms.No.303 and G.O.Ms.No.319, subject to the conditions that may
be prescribed by the Government for the monetary benefit with effect from
01.10.2017. Thereafter, the Government in G.O.Ms.No.134, dated 09.04.2018
passed orders extending the Tamil Nadu Revised Pay Rules 2017 and applicable
allowances to the employees of the State Transport Undertakings with a condition
that the entire financial commitment should be borne by the Corporation and they
should not seek financial assistance from the Government. Thereafter, the Pension
Fund Trust also issued a circular dated 09.05.2018 regarding the implementation
of the revised pay scales. Regarding the modality of implementation in respect of
the pensioners, an Expert Committee was also constituted. Purusant to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 12:59:20 pm )
recommendations of the Expert Committee, the Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation Employees Pension Fund Trust proposed to implement the 7th Pay
Commission Recommendations with prospective monetary benefits and also to
continue the dearness allowance without any change. Aggrieved by the
prospective effect of 7th Pay Commission benefits, the 1st respondent herein filed
the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.4340 of 2020. The Writ Court, by a common
order dated 02.03.2023, directed that monetary benefits shall be given to the
employees of the transport corporation restrospectively as per the 7th Pay
Commission. Challenging the said order, the Government has filed this appeal.
3.Today, when the Writ Appeal is taken up for hearing, the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant brought to the notice of this Court that against
one of the Writ Petitions ie., W.P.(MD)No.1147 of 2020 disposed of by a very
same common order impugned herein, a Writ Appeal in W.A.(MD)No.1240 of
2023 was filed and a co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated
13.09.2023 has dismissed the appeal, confirming the impugned common order.
Therefore, this Writ Appeal also shall meet the same fate.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 12:59:20 pm )
4.The relevant portion of the judgment dated 13.09.2023 made in
W.A.(MD)No.1240 of 2023 is extracted hereunder:-
“5.We have considered the rival submissions made an
either side and perused the material records of the case.
5.1. The respondents 1 and 2, the retired employees, are
aggrieved by two specific clauses in the impugned Government
Order. Firstly, it can be seen from Rule 20-A quoted above that the
Statutory Rules governing the pension, clearly envisages that the
pensioners are eligible for dearness allowance at the rate that would
be determined by the Government of Tamil Nadu. It goes without
saying that the dearness allowance which is fixed for the Government
employees from time to time is made applicable to the pensioners of
the Transport Corporations. While that being the position, the
impugned Government Order which is an executive instruction
cannot override the Statutory Rule. The said clause in the impugned
Government Order virtually has the effect of nullifying Rule 20-A of
the Statutory Rules and as such we have no hesitation in holding that
the said clause of the Government Order is invalid.
5.2. As far as extending the revised pay and its benefits are
concerned, firstly, it can be seen that it was within the realm of the
Government to extend or not to extend the revised pay. As a matter of
fact, it is the Government which had decided to extend the benefits to
the State Public Sector Undertakings vide G.O.Ms.No.319 dated
26.10.2017. As per the above Government Order, it is expressly made
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 12:59:20 pm )
clear that while extending, considering the financial position, it can
be made applicable with prospective effect or from a future date etc.,
and the Government specifically directed that the subject be placed
before the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors of the State
Owned Transport Corporations have categorically resolved to extend
the benefit to the employees with effect from 01.01.2016 and the
monetary benefit with effect from 01.10.2017 subject to the approval
of the Government. The Government in turn had approved the same
vide G.O.Ms.No.134 dated 09.05.2018. As a matter of fact, based on
the said Government Order, a circular was issued on 09.05.2018
which reads as follows:
“Hence, it is requested to give necessary
instruction to revise the pay and pension for the following
employees:
(1) The employees covered under 12(3) Wage
Settlement and retired/expired/Exist between 01.09.2016 to
31.12.2017.
(2) The Supervisors/Officers eligible for 7th Pay
Commission and retired/Expired/Exit between 01.01.2016 to
31.03.2018.
(3) The pay in respect of the above employees shall
be revised as per the references cited and the pension shall
be revised and the proposals have to be sent to their
respective audit centres like Erode, Dindigul and Chennai
after proper authentication on or before 31.05.2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 12:59:20 pm )
Moreover, the individual wise monthly commitment details to
be sent to the TNSTC EPF Trust, Chennai through Hard
copy and soft copy (E-mail) before 31.05.2018.”
5.3. Thus it can be clear that even though it was within the
realm of the Board of Directors to have postponed the actual
financial benefits, they thought it otherwise and consequently even
the pension fund trust ordered implementation. When that being so,
without even referring to G.O.Ms.No. 134, the impugned Government
order in G.O.Ms.No.142, dated 26.08.2019 is issued by restricting
the monetary benefit prospectively. In this regard, it is the
Government which decided to extend subject to conditions and it is
the corporations which expected to extend with or without any
modification of the Government Scheme. Once a particular decision
of implementing the Revised Pay Rules, is implemented as such
granting the benefits retrospectively, then at the time of carrying out
of the same, it cannot proclaim one and restrict thereafter. In this
regard, useful reference can be made to the Judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Another Vs.
G.Sethuraman1 and Paragraph Nos. 13 and 14 of the said Judgment
are extracted hereunder:
“13. In an oft quoted passage in East End
Dwelling Co. Ltd v. Finsbury Borough Council, (1951) 2
All.E.R 587, Lord Asquith observed : -
" If you are bidden to treat an imaginary state of
affairs as real, you must surely, unless prohibited from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 12:59:20 pm )
doing so, also imagine as real the consequence and
incidents which, if the putative state of affairs had in fact
existed, must inevitably have flowed from or accompanied
it. The statute says that you must imagine a certain state of
affairs; it does not say that having done so, you must cause
or permit your imagination to boggle when it comes to the
inevitable corollaries of that state of affairs"
The above observation has been quoted with
approval by the Supreme Court in several decisions e.g.
Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd.,
AIR 2003 SC 511 (para-33), C.W.T v. Trustees of H. E.H.,
(2003) 5 SCC 122
(para-20), Dipak Chandra Ruhidas v. Chandan Kumar
Sarkar, (2003) 7 SCC 66 (para-12), etc.
14. In the present case, the legal fiction which
has been created by order dated 7.6.1996 is that the writ
petitioner is deemed to have been retrospectively promoted
as Executive Engineer from 9.6.1988. Hence full effect must
be given to
this legal fiction, and for all purposes we have to treat it as
if the writ petitioner had in fact been promoted as Class I
officer from 9.6.1988, and our eyes should not boggle half
way. For these reasons, we fully agree with the view taken
by the learned single Judge in the impugned judgment.”
(emphasis supplied)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 12:59:20 pm )
Thus it can be seen that in the instant case also, after
making a conscious decision implementing the order partly by way of
Statutory Rule and partly by way of extending the benefit, at the final
lap, the eyes of the Government had boggled. Therefore the same is
impermissible.
F. The Result:
6. In that view of the matter, no exception can be taken for
the findings and conclusions reached by the learned Single Judge
and accordingly, finding no merits, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”
5.The said judgment is sought to be reviewed in Rev.Aplc.(MD)No.36
of 2024, which was dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 10.09.2024. The
relevant portion of the same is extracted hereunder:-
“22. Thus looking from any angle, the grounds raised on
behalf of the State as well as the review applications are
unacceptable. Apart from merits, the attempt is only to re-argue and
re-litigate the concluded matter. The selfsame arguments were also
made in the earlier round, which were rejected and the matter had
attained finality up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. No new
material or argument which is now made to review the judgment.
The grounds argued by the learned Advocate General would also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 12:59:20 pm )
not fall within the contours of the grounds of review as enunciated
under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
23. Therefore, finding no merits, the Writ Appeal as well
as the Review Application stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”
6.In the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench,
confirming the very same common order impugned herein, we are of the view that
the present appeal also deserves dismissal. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal stands
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are
closed.
[J.N.B.,J.] & [S.S.Y.,J.]
NCC : Yes / No 19.03.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 12:59:20 pm )
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Transport (E) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2.The Managing Director,
Management of the Tamil Nadu
State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited,
Kumbakonam.
3.The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Kumbakonam) Limited,
Nagapattinam Region, Nagappatinam.
4.The Administrator,
The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
Employees Pension Fund Trust,
Thiruvalluvar Illam, Pallavan Salai,
Chennai – 2.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 12:59:20 pm )
J.NISHA BANU, J.
and
S.SRIMATHY, J.
ps
ORDER MADE IN
DATED : 19.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 12:59:20 pm )
