The Managing Director, v. T.Manivannan,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN Rev.Aplw.No.59 of 2015 & M.P.No.1 of 2015 and Rev.Aplw.No.10 of 2025 & WMP No.1182 of 2025 Judgment reserved on 16.04.2025 Judgment pronounced on 02.06.2025 1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Water Supply & Drainage Board, No.31, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005. 2.The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Water Supply & Drainage Board, Maintenance Division, Alandur, Chennai - 600 016. Vs T.Manivannan ... Respondent in both Review Applications Prayer in Rev.Aplw No.59 of 2015 : Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC to review the order dated 08.11.2013 passed in W.P.No.31941 of 2004.
1/7
Prayer in Rev.Aplw No.10 of 2025 : Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC to review the order dated 08.11.2013 passed in W.P.No.6483 of 2008.
In both Review Applications:
For Petitioners : Mr.P.V.S.Giridhar, Senior Counsel For Ms.Shahila Banu For Respondent : Ms.K.S.Kamakshi COMMON ORDER In both the review applications, the service benefits of the writ petitioner, respondent herein is under dispute.
2. The original writ petitioner Mr.T.Manivannan was appointed as contract employee in the year 1990. He is a fitter on qualification of SSLC with ITI certificate. On 10.01.1990, he joined the office as daily wager. According to the petitioner, he is qualified for fitter Grade I but joined as Grade II. By a proceedings dated 10.06.1999, the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (TWAD) designated Fitters with qualifications of SSLC pass with ITI certificates as electrician Grade I from Grade II and fitter Grade II and their pay is re-fixed as on 01.01.1996. Subsequently, with 2/7
regard to the service benefits, the Board, by its Circular dated 09.10.2004 clarified that earlier Board Circular dated 10.06.1999 is applicable only to electrician and not to Fitter Grade II.
3. The original writ petitioner filed W.P.No.31941 of 2004 to quash the impugned order of the second respondent dated 09.10.2004 in so far it is concerned with the petitioner. The said writ petition was admitted on 02.11.2004 and allowed on 08.11.2013. The petitioner also filed W.P.No.6483 of 2008 to quash the proceedings of the Board dated 04.03.2008 and the same was allowed on 08.11.2013.
4. The TWAD Board preferred Writ Appeal in W.A.No.1492 of 2014 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 19.11.2014 with liberty to file review application. Accordingly, as against the order passed in W.P.No.31941 of 2004, Review Aplw.No.59 of 2015 is filed. So also, as against the order passed in W.P.No.6483 of 2008, the Review Aplw.No.10 of 2025 is filed. 3/7
5. The original petitioner also filed W.P.No.20379 of 2019 to grant all benefits to which he is entitled to, as per the orders of this Court alongwith arrears and interest, and the same was disposed of by this Court on 24.04.2025.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the review applicants and the learned counsel for the respondent/original petitioner.
7. Ms.K.S.Kamakshi, learned counsel for the respondent in the review applications relied upon the orders passed in the case of similarly placed persons in W.P.No.19993 of 2020 dated 19.01.2024, W.P. (MD) No.8266 of 2010 etc. batch dated 31.10.2019 and W.A.(MD) Nos.1233 to 1235 of 2014 dated 21.01.2021 and contended that since similarly placed persons were also been granted similar relief, there is nothing to review the orders impugned in these review applications.
8. The learned counsel for the review petitioner/ TWAD Board sought time to ascertain the facts and subsequently, the matter was posted on 07.04.2025.
4/7
9. Heard both sides and perused the records.
10. After perusing the orders referred to in the preceding paragraphs, I find that this Court has passed orders based upon the recommendation of One-man Committee which is proposed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.762/Finance (Pay Cell) Dept. dated 20.08.1986 and subsequently, the TWAD Board has issued circular dated 10.06.1999, following the recommendation of One Man Committee.
11. The case of the original writ petitioner is that not only electrician is entitled for revised scale of pay and it is applicable to all persons working in that cadre depending upon their qualification. In the instant case, the original writ petitioner Mr.T.Manivannan, has been satisfied and hence, the learned Judge passed an order on 08.11.2013 granting the relief to the petitioner. While passing the final order in the writ petition, there was no representation for TWAD Board and hence the review petitioners preferred an appeal. The order of the learned Single Judge was not interfered with in the said appeal and it was dismissed as withdrawn on 19.11.2014 with liberty to file review application.
5/7
12. After going through the service matrix of the writ petitioner, the connected Government Order and the orders passed by this Court for similarly placed persons in other writ petitions, as referred supra, I find that the points raised by the review petitioners does not come under the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC since there is nothing apparent on the face of the record nor any other point to review the order.
13. In the result, both the review applications are dismissed as devoid of merits. In both the writ petitions, orders were passed by this court ten years ago and so far, the writ petitioner has not received any benefit. Hence, the review applications are dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- each payable to the writ petitioner. The respondents are directed to revise the pay scale of the petitioner and pay the service benefits and all other terminal benefits, together with interest @ 9%, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 02.06.2025 rgr Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order 6/7
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
rgr Common Order in Rev.Aplw.No.59 of 2015 & M.P.No.1 of 2015 and Rev.Aplw.No.10 of 2025 & WMP No.1182 of 2025 02.06.2025 7/7