The Deputy Director Of Family v. Dharmaraja,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR W.A.(MD)No.1038 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015 The Deputy Director of Family Welfare Tirunelveli Medical College Campus Poonuchamy Bungalow Compound Tirunelveli District ... Appellant Vs.
1.Dharmaraja 2.S.Murugesan 3.M.Boopathi 4.M.Kumar 5.M.Sankaran 6.R.Subash Pandiyan 7.A.Appar 8.K.Selvaraj 1/11
9.C.Gunasekaran 10.M.Thangasamy 11.R.Sekar 12.K.Ganeshan 13.M.S.Gurusamy (Rtd.) 14.S.Banumoorthy (Rtd.) 15.N.Murugaiya 16.U.Sivakumar 17.P.Sathasivam 18.R.Petchimuthu 19.P.Ganesan 20.S.Muniyasamy 21.M.Sangili Raja 22.S.Chandran 23.The Joint Director of Health Service Government Headquarters Hospital Ramanathapuram District 24.The Deputy Director of Health Service Old Police Station Road Samanathapuram Tirunelveli District 25.The Government Primary Health Centre Munijipatti (Post) Nanguneri (Taluk) Tirunelveli District 2/11
26.The Deputy Director of Health Service Collector Campus Ramanathapuram District 27.The District Social Welfare Officer Collectorate Campus Ramanathapuram District 28.The Designated Officer Tamil Nadu Food Safety and Drug Administrative Department Collectorate Campus Ramanathapuram District
29. The Block Development Officer Village Panchayat Paramakudi 30.The Block Medical Officer Government Primary Health Centre Bogalur-Paramakudi Ramnad District 31.The Block Medical Officer Government Primary Health Care Keelathuval, Muthukulathur (Taluk) Ramnad District 32.The Block Medical Officer Government Primary Health Centre R.S.Mangalam Ramnad District 33.The Block Medical Officer Government Primary Health Centre Uchipuli, Ramnad District 3/11
34.The Block Medical Officer Government Primary Health Centre Pondubudi @ Thondi Ramnad District 35.The Deputy Director of Health Service Race Course Road, Trichy 36.The Superintending Engineer Agricultural Engineering Department No.2, Jail Cornar, Subramaniyapuram Trichy 37.The Executive Engineer Agricultural Engineering Virudhunagar 38.The Block Medical Officer Government Primary Health Centre Zaminkollankondan Rajapalayam (Taluk) Virudhunagar District 39.The Block Medical Officer Government Primary Health Centre Devipattinam, Ramnad District 40.Deputy Director of Health Service Paramakudi (HOD) Paramakudi 41.The District Treasury Officer Collectorate Campus Ramanathapuram 4/11
42.The Hosur Treasury Collectorate Campus Tirunelveli 43.The Hosur Treasury Trichy 44.The District Treasury Officer Collectorate Campus Tirunelveli 45.The Sub-Treasury Officer Paramakudi 46.The Sub-Treasury Officer Muthukulathur 47.The Sub-Treasury Officer Thiruvadanai 48.The Sub-Treasury Officer Mandapam Campus 49.The Assistant Treasury Officer Nanguneri 50.The Sub-Treasury Officer Rajapalayam Virudhunagar District 51.The Sub Treasury Officer Ramanathapuram 52.The Personal Assistant to Collector Rural Development Office Ramanathapuram ... Respondents 5/11
(Respondents 2 to 52 are given up) PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order, dated 19.07.2013 in WP(MD).No.11543 of 2013 and allow this writ appeal.
For Appellant :Mr.M.Sidharthan Additional Government Pleader For R1 :Mr.Ayiram K.Selvakumar For Mr.M.Ravi ****
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.) We have had occasion to consider an identical issue in W.A(MD).No.1281 of 2013 batch case by order dated 14.07.2023 and passed the following order therein, in the light of admitted facts in detail: "The appellants in these Writ Appeals are the Child Development Project Officer and the District Forest Officer. The respondents/Writ Petitioners are Drivers in the aforesaid two departments and had sought a Mandamus directing the respondents in the Writ Petition to re-fix Selection and Special Grade Scales of Pay, as indicated in Schedule-II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 (1998 Rules). The slab at which they sought re-fixation was 5000-150-8000 and 5500-175-9000 respectively, with consequential monetary 6/11
benefits and arrears with effect from 01.01.1996. 2.The Writ Court has noted the dates of entry into service, grant of Selection Grade, grant of Special Grade and the retirement of the respondents by way of the following tabulation:
date of grant of Selection Grade date of grant of Special Grade Date of entry into service Sl.
No.
Name of the petitioner date of retirement 1.
Subbuiah (W.P.No.2925 of 2012) 20.11.1984 20.11.1994 20.11.2004 31.05.2008 2.
Santhanam 12.03.1976 12.03.1986 12.03.1996 31.01.2009 (W.P.No.2926 of 2012) 3.
Govindasamy (W.P.No.2927 of 16.09.1981 16.09.1991 16.09.2001 30.09.2005 4.
Panchavarnam 04.04.1983 04.04.1993 04.04.2003 31.10.2010 (W.P.No.2928 of 2012) 5.
S.Chandasekaran (W.P.No.2939 of 2012) 28.04.1993 05.01.2004 .......
Petitioner is in service 6.
R.Ravindranathan 02.03.1998 02.03.20 .......
Petitioner is in service (W.P.No.2940 of 2012) 7/11
7.
P.Chandrasekaran 05.11.1990 05.11.2000 .......
Petitioner is in service (W.P.No.2942 of 2012) 3.Relying on G.O.Ms.No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998, the Writ Petitioners had contended that there was no parity that had been followed in grant of ordinary pay and correspondingly Selection and Special Grade pay.
4.The Writ Court accepted the prayer following the order passed by a Division Bench in a batch of Writ Appeals in W.A.Nos.383 to 391 and 393 of 2009 dated 01.09.2009. That order was subject matter of a Review Application and by order dated 15.04.2021, the Review Applications were allowed following the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 18.12.2019 in Civil Appeal Nos.9533-9537 of 2019 and batch in P.Singaravelan and others vs the District Collector, Tiruppur and others.
5.The question that arose therein was identical to the present matter and in conclusion, the Division Bench has directed that the fixation of pay be allowed to the Petitioners therein as per Sl.No.6 of Schedule-II, which fixes the pay scales at Rs.4000-100-6000 and 4300-100-6000. 6.In the interest of clarity, the original order in Writ Appeal had fixed the pay scales in terms of Sl.No.8 at Rs. 5000-8000 (Selection Grade) and Rs.5500-9000 (Special Grade) and this stood modified to the scales of pay set out in Sl.No.6, being Rs.4000-100-6000 (Selection Grade) and 4300-100-6000 (Special Grade).
7.The judgment in P.Singaravelan was followed in a batch of Writ Appeals filed by the Department of Sericulture in W.A.No.1398 of 2013 and batch by a decision dated 8/11
08.07.2015. The operative portion of the decision, being paragraphs 42 and 43, is set out hereunder:
"42. Therefore, in the result, all the writ petitions filed by the individual employees claiming Selection Grade scale of pay of Rs.5000-8000 and Special Grade pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 are liable to be dismissed. However, there are a few writ petitions such as W.P.Nos.23550 of 2010, 5498 of 2012 and 30616 of 2012, where the employees claim that they are not even granted the admissible Selection Grade and Special Grade scales pay of Rs. 4000-6000 and Rs.4300-6000 respectively.
43. Therefore, with a clarification that all the petitioners in the writ petitions and the respondents in the writ appeals are entitled only to a Selection Grade scale of pay of Rs.4000-100-6000 and a Special Grade scale of pay of Rs.4300-100-6000, but not more than that, all the writ petitions filed by the employees are dismissed. All the writ appeals filed either by the State Government or by various Heads of Departments or by various officers of the Government or by various Local Bodies or Boards or Corporations, shall stand allowed. There will be no order as to costs."
8.In dealing with that batch, the Bench had dealt with the specific argument of discrimination that had found favour by Mr.Justice D.Hariparanthaman in the order impugned in appeal now and at Paragraphs 27 and 28 they state as follows:
27. Therefore, the Writ Petitioners in the present batch of cases cannot rely upon Article 14, when this Court never went into the question (except in the decision of D.Hariparanthaman,J) as 9/11
to whether the drivers are entitled to a selection grade scale of pay of Rs.5000/- and a special grade scale of pay of Rs.5500/-.
28. As rightly pointed out by the Learned Advocate General, the pressure that keeps mounting upon this Court due to the huge pendency and the tendency that results therefrom, to dispose of at least those cases which are covered by earlier decisions, even on the first or second date of hearing, has actually led to this position. Therefore we cannot sweep the core issue under the carpet and reiterate the same mistakes by taking recourse to Article 14. Hence we reject the first contention advanced on behalf of the employees."
9.In the result, these Writ Appeals are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. "
2.In light of the identity in factual and legal position, this Writ Appeal stands allowed in line with the above order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. [A.S.M.J.,] & [R.V.J.,] 01.08.2023 NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes msa 10/11
DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
AND R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
msa Judgment made in W.A.(MD)No.1038 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015 Dated:
01.08.2023 11/11