Judgment :- (PRAYER : This writ petition came to be numbered by way of transfer of O.A.No.252 of 2003 from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to call for the records relating to Iyak No.A1/28884/2002 dated 05.7.2002, quash the same and direct the respondent to revise the salary as per the letter of the Government of Tamil Nadu, Finance (Pay Commission) Department in Letter No.88189/PC-IA/89-1 dated 23.8.1989.) Though initially the writ petitioner filed O.A.No.252 of 2003 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the same has been transferred to the file of this Court and re-numbered as Writ Petition. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Re-toucher–cum–Artist in the year 1975 in the respondent Department. In the year 1989, the Government issued Letter No.88189/PC-IA/89-1 dated 23.8.1989 reclassifying the posts of Grade I, Grade II and Grade III, as under: The above said classification has been made based on the nature of work executed by the incumbents in each group. As far as Artists are concerned, the nature of work to be executed by them relate to bulk work of drawing, painting, designing, etc. and if it is so, as per the above letter issued by the Government, the post can be re-designated as an 'Artist' and the scale of pay can be fixed at Rs.1400-2600. It is further mentioned in the above said letter that if the work relates to taking still photographs or flash photographs, the post may be re-designated as 'Photographer'. So also, if the major work of the post deals with cinematography, the post may be re-designated as 'Cameraman'. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that since he was doing the work of painting, drawing, designing, etc., he gave a representation on 21.6.2002 to refix his salary based on the above said letter issued by the Government, but the same was rejected by the respondent on 05.7.2002. Challenging the same, the above O.A. has been filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and the same has been transferred to this Court and re-numbered as writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner contended that the petitioner is the only employee in Madurai doing the work for the Tamil Nadu State Government Lottery Ticket, Tamil Nadu Calender and Tamil Nadu Government diary. 4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner contended that the petitioner is the only employee in Madurai doing the work for the Tamil Nadu State Government Lottery Ticket, Tamil Nadu Calender and Tamil Nadu Government diary. He submits that his nature of work involves only painting, drawing and designing and as such, his pay has to be refixed in the scale of pay of Rs.1400-2600. Learned counsel further contended that the representation of the petitioner was rejected stating that the persons having more work in Drawing/Painting/Designing alone are entitled to the post of 'Artist' under the above letter issued by Government and since the petitioner is not doing the bulk work of drawing, painting and designing for the respondent Department, he is not entitled for the scale of pay of Rs.1400-2600, which according to him, is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 5. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submits that the nature of work of Re-toucher-cum-Artist in the Government Branch Press, Madurai, is to opaque the unnecessary parts of negative and positive, re-touching the necessary portions, arranging the pages in a manner to print continuously and also to fix the margin properly. Therefore, the nature of work executed by the petitioner does not relate to either painting or drawing or designing. That apart, for the past ten years, the printing works are carried out by using Computer and D.T.P. at Madurai where the petitioner was working and as such, he is not entitled for the scale of pay of Rs.1400/- and therefore, the writ petition has to be dismissed. 6. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent. 7. Admittedly, the Government, by Letter No.88189/PC-IA/89-1 dated 23.8.1989, re-designated the post of Artist based on the nature of work done. As far as the post of Artist is concerned, as per the above letter issued by the Government, one has to execute bulk work of drawing, painting and designing. Therefore, if the petitioner is actually doing the bulk work relating to drawing, painting and designing, he could certainly ask for re-designation of his post as an Artist. But even as on date, his designation is only Re-toucher-cum-Artist. Therefore, if the petitioner is actually doing the bulk work relating to drawing, painting and designing, he could certainly ask for re-designation of his post as an Artist. But even as on date, his designation is only Re-toucher-cum-Artist. It is also seen from the counter filed by the learned Additional Government Pleader that the nature of work executed by the petitioner does not involve drawing, painting and designing or taking of still photographs or flash photographs or cinematography. Hence, the post of Re-toucher-cum-Artist cannot be re-designated as Artist. That apart, basing on the qualification of Diploma in Fine Arts, without holding the post of Artist, the petitioner cannot claim the scale of pay prescribed for the post of Artist. No document has been produced before this Court or enclosed in the Original Application to establish that the petitioner was executing bulk work relating to drawing, painting or designing. As such, it is clear that the petitioner was not working as an Artist or was executing the work of an Artist and therefore, he cannot seek for a direction to fix his pay in the scale of pay of Rs.1400/- as per the Fifth Pay Commission and Rs.5500/- as per the Sixth Pay Commission Recommendations, which is meant only for those who are working in the designation of Artist, and accordingly, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be sustained. 8. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.