M.Madhavan v. State Of Tamilnadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 26.02.2019

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR W.P.No.33959 of 2014 1 M.Madhavan 2 R.Velayudham 3 K.Selvakumar 4 A.Krishnamoorthy 5 S.Mangaiyarkarasi 6 J.A.Bathusha 7 V.Jayakumar 8 M.Sepperuman 9 P.Arunkumar 10 B.Anbalagan 11 K.G.Premalatha 12 T.Kotteeswaran 13 B.Abinaya 14 D.Vijayalakshmi 15 D.S.Balaji 16 V.Elango 17 M.R.Jagadeeswaran 18 T.Anandan 19 S.Kalpana 20 V.K.Saravanan 21 K.Vedanayagam 22 V.Pagutharivu 23 V.Ravi 24 S.Sekar 25 R.Sasikala 26 D.Patric Kingsly 27 A.C.Selvaraj 28 S.Manivannan 29 P.Komathi 30 M.Gowri 31 G.Meenakshi 32 P.Kandasamy 33 P.S.Ramakrishnan 34 B.Sivagurunathan 35 M.R.Muthalagu 36 K.P.Bharathi 37 S.P.Sivakumar 38 G.Swapna 39 S.Amuthavalli 40 Geetha Mahadevan 41 B.Jayaram

42 R.Tamilarasi 43 M.Subash Chandra Bose 44 M.Selvakumar 45 J.Selvarani 46 K.Sankaran 47 A.Devendran 48 C.Inbaraj 49 M.Govindaraj 50 M.Settu 51 R.Venkatesan 52 R.Ravichandran 53 S.Leelavathi 54 C.Meena 55 A.Nawabjan 56 G.Chitra 57 A.Vasu 58 P.V.Gopinathan 59 S.K.Babukumar 60 S.Chandrasoorian 61 P.Kanagaraj 62 S.Muthupandiammal 63 S.Punithavathi 64 P.Meenambigai 65 I.Shabeena 66 M.Selvi 67 K.Anithabanu 68 S.Latha 69 A.Premila 70 A.Janaki 71 V.Rameshkumar 72 R.Suresh 73 M.Premalatha 74 K.Ravi 75 S.Tharmaraj 76 R.Balasubramanian 77 L.Vijayakamatchi 78 D.Rose Victoria 79 M.Mohamed Ali Jinnah 80 K.Palani 81 A.Latha 82 R.Shanmugavadivu 83 M.Allah Baksh 84 A.Sekar 85 E.Raman 86 S.Krishnamoorthi 87 S.Selvakumar 88 S.Suguna 89 M.Anbarasan 90 V.Vasanthi 91 A.Ayisha Gani 92 V.Ramamoorthy

93 S.Vasumathi 94 V.Sriranjithkumar 95 S.Palanisamy 96 M.Shiyamsundar 97 S.Prema 98 R.Selvam 99 K.Jayakumar 100 N.Manibharathi 101 R.Rajagowri 102 M.Saravanan 103 S.Shanthi 104 N.Venkatesan ... Petitioners Vs 1 The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government, School Eduction Department, Secretariat Chennai-9.

2 The Director of School, Education College Road Chennai-6.

... Respondents Prayer:- The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.6 School Education Department dated 04.01.2000, insofar as the fixation of scale of pay to the Agriculture Instructors under Rule 8 of Higher Secondary Vocational Education Adhoc Rules at Rs.1400/- prior to 01.01.1996 and at Rs.5500/- after 01.01.1996 and the Government Letter No.14855/C.C. 1(3)/2014, School Education Department, dated 10.10.2014 and quash the same and direct the respondents to fix the scale of pay of the petitioners at Rs.6500/- from the date of appointment and at pay Band Rs.15600/- Grade Pay Rs.5400/- with effect from 01.01.2006 and confer all the consequential benefits.

For Petitioners : P.Ganesan For Respondents : Mr.K.Karthikeyan Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

The petitioners have filed this Writ Petition for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.6 School Education Department dated 04.01.2000, insofar as the fixation of scale of pay to the Agriculture Instructors under Rule 8 of Higher Secondary Vocational Education Adhoc Rules at Rs.1400/- prior to 01.01.1996 and at Rs.5500/- after 01.01.1996 and the Government Letter

No.14855/C.C.1(3)/2014, School Education Department, dated 10.10.2014 and quash the same and direct the respondents to fix the scale of pay of the petitioners at Rs.6500/- from the date of appointment and at pay Band Rs.15600/- Grade Pay Rs.5400/- with effect from 01.01.2006 and confer all the consequential benefits.

2. The petitioners would submit that they are working as Agricultural Instructors in various Government Higher Secondary Schools in Tamil Nadu. The petitioners would further submit that the scale of pay for the Professional Degree holders are equal to the academic degree holders. Hence, as against the fixation of equal pay in the V Pay Commission, the Association of Agricultural Graduates made a representation and One Man Commission was constituted and on seeing the professional degree possessed by the persons and taking classes in Higher Secondary Schools, the One Man Commission recommended the scale of pay at Rs.2,000/- for the Vocational Instructors working in the Higher Secondary Schools in spite of the fact that the P.G. Assistants working in the Higher Secondary Schools were given the scale of pay of Rs.1,840/-.

The recommendation of the One Man Commission was accepted by the Government and the Government issued Order in G.O.Ms.No.840, Finance Department, dated 31.07.1990. Since the pay scale of Rs.2,000/- was not fixed for the Agricultural Instructor with B.Sc. (Agriculture) Degree, they made a representation requesting to fix the scale pay at Rs.2,000/- as per the recommendation of the One Man Commission. Since their representation was not considered, they approached this Court by filing Writ Petitions and the same were allowed with a direction to the respondents to fix the scale of Rs.2,000/- to the Agriculture Instructors. Thereafter, the corresponding revision of pay under the Tamil Nadu Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 1996 was fixed at Rs.6,500/-. Similarly, subsequent Pay Commission revised the scale of pay at P.B. Rs.

15,600/- with Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/- from 01.01.2006. Hence, they made a representation to the respondents requesting to fix the scale of pay at Rs.6,500/- under the Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 1996 and at Pay Brand of Rs.15,600/- with Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/- as per the VI Pay Commission recommendation, because they were not given the fixation, whereas, they have been given the fixation at Rs.5,500/- and correspondingly, the Pay Brand of Rs.9,300/- with Grade Pay Rs.4,600/- respectively. Since the representation of the petitioners was not considered, they filed Writ Petitions before this Court and this Court gave a direction to consider the representation as per the judgment of this Court as well as the order passed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.840, Finance Department, dated 31.07.1990.

The Government rejected the representation of the petitioners under the impugned order dated 10.10.2014. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court.

3. The issue involved in this Writ Petition is no longer res integra. Initially, similarly placed persons have approached Madurai Bench of this Court by filing a Writ Petition in W.P. (MD) No.5766 of 2008 and this Court, by an order dated 05.03.2012, allowed the Writ Petition. Against which, the Government preferred an appeal in W.A. (MD) No.1344 of 2013 and this Court, by an order dated 14.08.2014 dismissed the Writ Appeal. Thereafter, the State preferred SLP.C.No.235 of 2015 before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court, dismissed the Special Leave Petition on 07.09.2015. Further, by referring the above said fact, this Court, by an order dated 14.09.2017 in W.P.Nos.9675 & 9676 of 2015, allowed the similar Writ Petitions. The relevant paragraphs would run thus:- "5.The similar issue was already adjudicated by this Court in the case of G.Vasimalai -Vs- State of Tamil Nadu in W.P (M.D) No.5766 of 2008. The learned Single Judge passed an order on 05.03.2012 is extracted here under:

'The issue involved in this case is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to get the salary in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.840 Finance (Pay) Commission dated 31.7.1990 when he is holding B.Sc (Agri) degree. The learned Judge has categorically found in the above referred order that when the petitioner is also doing the same work as that of the other Vocational Instructors, there is no justification to deny the scale of pay applicable to Vocational Instructors. The learned Judge has also categorically found that there cannot be two sets of Vocational Instructors drawing the different scale of pay and doing the similar work. The learned Judge has granted relief in the said Writ Petition to fix the scale of pay as Rs.2000-3500.

Accordingly, in this case also the petitioner is entitled to relief of re-fixation of the scale of pay in terms of G.O.Ms.No.840 (Finance (Pay Commission) dated 31.7.1990. Therefore, the reasons assigned in the impugned order are not justifiable and the same is unsustainable in view of the findings given by this Court in other Writ Petition in W.P.No.32121 of dated 5.1.2010.

Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed and the respondent is directed to re-fix the scale of pay of the petitioner in terms of

G.O.Ms.No.840 (Finance (Pay Commission) dated 31.7.1990 from the date of regularization namely, 16.10.1992 and pass orders and to pay monetary benefits within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.'

6.The state preferred W.A.(MD) No.1344 of 2013 against the order cited supra and the Hon'ble Division Bench considered the issues elaborately and delivered a Judgment on 14.08.2014 and the relevant paragraphs are extracted here under:- '21.Keeping in mind the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions of the Honourable Apex Court as well as this Court, we have no hesitation to conclude that the impugned order herein passed by the learned Judge (K.Ravichandra Baabu,J.), in W.P.(MD) No.5766 of 2008, dated 05.03.2012, by following the order passed by the learned Judge (D.Hariparanthaman,J.) in W.P.No.32121 of 2006, dated 05.01.2010, is tenable.

22.Further, on a deep scrutiny of the materials available on record, we find that there is no need to refer the matter to a Larger Bench, since there are no conflict verdicts on the issue on hand and it cannot be said that the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court (EDRJ & RPSJ) is a nonspeaking order, for the reason that the Division Bench of this Court had considered the issue and upheld the order passed by the learned Judge (D.Hariparanthaman,J.) in W.P.No.32121 of 2006. It is also not correct to state that the Honourable Supreme Court simply dismissed the Special Leave Petition without dealing with the correctness of the matters.

23.In such circumstances, we find that the order passed by the learned Judge (K.Ravichandra Baabu, J) in W.P.(MD) No.5766 of 2008, dated 05.03.2012, by following the earlier order passed by the learned Judge (D.Hariparanthaman, J), in W.P.No.32121 of 2006, dated 05.01.2010, which was ultimately confirmed by the Honourable Apex Court, is in accordance with law and no interference at the hands of this Court is warranted.

Accordingly, we find no cause or reason to differ with the same.

24.In fine, the writ appeal stands dismissed.

Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions is dismissed. No costs.'

7.The State preferred SLP C No.237 of 2015 before the Apex Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dismissed the Special Leave Petition on 07.09.2015. Thus, the matter reached finality and the learned counsel for the writ petitioner further brought to the notice of this Court that the order passed in the above cases were implemented by the respondent State by issuing G.O.(3D) No.91, School Education Department dated 26.05.2016. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petitioners in these writ petitions are also entitled to get the same benefit of equal time scale of pay in accordance with the G.O.Ms.No.840, Finance (Pay Commission) dated 31.07.1990.

8.Accordingly, the orders impugned in these writ petitions stand quashed and the writ petitions stand allowed in terms of the orders passed by this Court in W.P. (MD) No.5766 of 2008 dated 05.03.2012 and the W.A. (MD) No.1344 of 2013 dated 14.08.2014. The respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders as early as possible. However, there is no order as to costs. "

4. In the light of the above, the orders impugned in the writ petition stands quashed and the writ petition is allowed. It is open to the petitioners to make fresh representation to the second respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such receipt, the second respondent is directed to consider the representation in terms of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.5766 of 2008 dated 05.03.2012 and W.A. (MD) No.1344 of 2013 dated 14.08.2014 and pass appropriate orders, as early as possible. However, there is no order as to costs.

s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS V) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar

To 1.The Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu, School Eduction Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.

2 The Director of School of Education College Road Chennai-6.

+1 CC to Mr.C.S.Associate sr 17954 +1 CC to The Govt. Pleader sr 18236.

W.P.No.33959 of 2014 EV(CO) SP(05/04/2019)