Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs K. Duraimuthu (Died) on 17 November, 2025
Author: R. Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
W.A Nos.3093 to 3096 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17-11-2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
W.A Nos.3093 to 3096 of 2025
And
CMP.Nos. 25197 to 25200 of 2025
W.A.No. 3093 of 2025
1.The Managing Director,
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and
Sewerage Board (CMWSS Board)
No.1, Pumping Station Road,
Chintadiripet, Chennai-600002.
2.The General Manager,
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and
Sewerage Board (CMWSS Board)
No.1, Pumping Station Road,
Chintadiripet, Chennai-600002. ..Appellants
Vs
K. Duraimuthu (Died)
1. Lakshmi .D
2. Hemalatha .D
3. Padmapriya.D
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 03:14:05 pm )
W.A Nos.3093 to 3096 of 2025
4.The Commissioner,
Corporation of Madras,
Chennai-600003.
5.The Secretary to Government,
Department of Local Administration,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600009.
6.The Secretary to Government,
Finance (Pay Cell) Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600009. ..Respondents
(Respondents 1 to 3/LRs of the writ petitoner
were impleaded with order of this Court dated 19.09.2025)
W.A.No. 3094 of 2025
1.The Managing Director,
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and
Sewerage Board (CMWSS Board)
No.1, Pumping Station Road,
Chintadiripet, Chennai-600002.
2.The General Manager,
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and
Sewerage Board (CMWSS Board)
No.1, Pumping Station Road,
Chintadiripet, Chennai-600002. ..Appellants
Vs
1.A.N.Deenadayalan
2.The Commissioner,
Corporation of Madras,
Chennai-600003.
2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 03:14:05 pm )
W.A Nos.3093 to 3096 of 2025
3.The Secretary to Government,
Department of Local Administration,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600009.
4.The Secretary to Government,
Finance (Pay Cell) Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600009. ..Respondents
W.A.No. 3095 of 2025
1.The Managing Director,
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and
Sewerage Board (CMWSS Board)
No.1, Pumping Station Road,
Chintadiripet, Chennai-600002.
2.The General Manager,
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and
Sewerage Board (CMWSS Board)
No.1, Pumping Station Road,
Chintadiripet, Chennai-600002. ..Appellants
Vs
1.R. Santhanam
2.The Commissioner,
Corporation of Madras,
Chennai-600003.
3.The Secretary to Government,
Department of Local Administration,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600009.
3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 03:14:05 pm )
W.A Nos.3093 to 3096 of 2025
4.The Secretary to Government,
Finance (Pay Cell) Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600009. ..Respondents
W.A.No. 3096 of 2025
1.The Managing Director,
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and
Sewerage Board (CMWSS Board)
No.1, Pumping Station Road,
Chintadiripet, Chennai-600002.
2.The General Manager,
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and
Sewerage Board (CMWSS Board)
No.1, Pumping Station Road,
Chintadiripet, Chennai-600002. ..Appellants
Vs
1.G.V.Loganathan
2.The Commissioner,
Corporation of Madras,
Chennai-600003.
3.The Secretary to Government,
Department of Local Administration,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600009.
4.The Secretary to Government,
Finance (Pay Cell) Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600009. ..Respondents
4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 03:14:05 pm )
W.A Nos.3093 to 3096 of 2025
Common Prayer : These Writ Appeals are filed under Clause 15 of Letter
Patent to set aside the orders dated 05.03.2024 passed in W.P. Nos. 1921 of
2016, 1922 of 2016, 1923 of 2016 and 1924 of 2016 .
For Appellants: Mr.R.Neelakandan, AAG
(in all Writ Appeals)
For Respondents : Mr.S.Arunachalam – R1 (in all WAs)
Mr.D.B.R.Prabhu, Standing Counsel
(For R4 in W.A.No. 3093 of 2025 and
For R2 in W.A.Nos. 3094 to 3096 of 2025)
Mr.E.Vijay Anand, AGP
(For R5 & R6 in W.A.No.3093 of 2025
and For R3 & R4 in W.A.Nos.3094 to 3096 of 2025)
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Made by HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.)
Since the issue involved in all these writ appeals is identical, they are
taken up together, heard, and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. These intra-court appeals are directed against the orders passed in
W.P. Nos. 1921 of 2016, 1922 of 2016, 1923 of 2016 and 1924 of 2016 dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 03:14:05 pm )
W.A Nos.3093 to 3096 of 2025
05.03.2024. By the said order, the learned Single Judge set aside the order
dated 17.11.2015 passed by the first appellant, wherein the request of the
respondents/writ petitioners for revision of the scale of pay in terms of G.O.
Ms. No. 582, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 01.08.1992, was rejected as
not feasible for consideration.
3.1. The respondents/writ petitioners in all these appeals were originally
appointed as Time Keepers in the respondent-Corporation. Upon the
constitution of the appellant-Board, employees from the erstwhile Water Works
Department and the Special Works Department of the Madras Municipal
Corporation were transferred to the newly formed Board. The respondents/writ
petitioners were accordingly absorbed as Time Keepers with all attendant
service benefits.
3.2. The Government, through G.O. Ms. No. 582 dated 01.08.1992, revised
the time scale of pay for certain categories of posts in the third respondent-
Corporation, including Assistant Overseer. However, no such revision was
extended to the category of Time Keeper in the appellant-Board. Nonetheless,
the appellant-Board revised the pay scale for three individuals on the ground
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 03:14:05 pm )
W.A Nos.3093 to 3096 of 2025
that they had earlier served as Assistant Overseers in the respondent-
Corporation before their absorption as Time Keepers.
3.3. The request of the respondents/writ petitioners for similar revision
of pay was rejected, which compelled them to file the writ petitions. The
learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, set aside the decision of the
appellants and directed revision of the pay scale with consequential monetary
benefits. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants have preferred these writ appeals.
4. Mr. R. Neelakandan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing
for the appellants, submitted that the respondents/writ petitioners, both at the
time of initial appointment as Time Keepers and at the stage of absorption into
the appellant-Board, did not possess the requisite qualifications prescribed for
the post. Therefore, they were not eligible for the benefit of revised time scale
of pay under G.O. Ms. No. 582 dated 01.08.1992.
5. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the three
individuals who had earlier served as Assistant Overseers in the respondent-
Corporation possessed the requisite qualifications, as reflected in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 03:14:05 pm )
W.A Nos.3093 to 3096 of 2025
proceedings of the Board dated 26.08.2000, and hence they alone were
extended the benefit. Consequently, the learned Single Judge erred in directing
extension of the benefit to the respondents/writ petitioners, rendering the
impugned order legally unsustainable.
6. In response, Mr. S.Arunachalam, learned counsel for the
respondents/writ petitioners submitted that the respondent/writ petitioners were
duly absorbed as Time Keepers and have been discharging the functions and
responsibilities attached to that post. After absorption, there cannot be
discrimination among Time Keepers based on their pre-absorption
qualifications, particularly when all of them perform identical duties. The
respondents/writ petitioners are, therefore, entitled to the benefit of the
principle of equal pay for equal work on par with similarly placed Time
Keepers. Hence, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge suffers from
no infirmity and warrants no interference.
7. The submissions of the learned counsel on either side, along with the
materials placed on record, have been carefully considered.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 03:14:05 pm )
W.A Nos.3093 to 3096 of 2025
8. It is not in dispute that the respondents/writ petitioners were absorbed
into the appellant-Board as Time Keepers. It is also evident that other
individuals who had earlier served as Assistant Overseers in the respondent-
Corporation were similarly absorbed as Time Keepers. The appellant-Board
extended the revised scale of pay to only three such individuals, all of whom
had a past tenure as Assistant Overseers. The respondents/writ petitioners, after
absorption, discharged the same duties as those of the other Time Keepers who
were extended the benefit of revised pay.
9. G.O. Ms. No. 582 dated 01.08.1992 does not prescribe any distinction
among Time Keepers based on educational qualification or prior service history
for the purpose of extending the revised time scale of pay. A classification
between similarly placed employees must satisfy the test of reasonableness
under Article 14 of the Constitution. Once the respondents/writ petitioners were
absorbed and were performing identical duties, denying them the benefit of the
revised pay scale solely on the ground of prior qualifications amounts to
arbitrary and hostile discrimination.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 03:14:05 pm )
W.A Nos.3093 to 3096 of 2025
10. Service jurisprudence rests upon the foundation of fairness, non-
discrimination, and equality. The principle of equal pay for equal work
mandates parity where employees perform the same duties and shoulder similar
responsibilities. The learned Single Judge, having appreciated these aspects,
rightly extended the benefit of the revised scale of pay to the respondents/writ
petitioners.
11. In the absence of any perversity, illegality in the reasoning of the
learned Single Judge, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned
orders.
12. Accordingly, these writ appeals stand dismissed. Consequently, the
connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
(R.S.K.,J) (H.C., J)
17.11.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
ak
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 03:14:05 pm )
W.A Nos.3093 to 3096 of 2025
To
1.The Commissioner,
Corporation of Madras,
Chennai-600003.
2.The Secretary to Government,
Department of Local Administration,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-600009.
3.The Secretary to Government,
Finance (Pay Cell) Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 03:14:05 pm )
W.A Nos.3093 to 3096 of 2025
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.,
ak
W.A Nos.3093 to 3096 of 2025
17.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 03:14:05 pm )
