Judgment :- 1. The writ petition is directed against the impugned order of the second respondent dated 20.10.2008, by which the second respondent being the District Collector-cum-Chairman, District Rural Development Agency has fixed the consolidated pay at Rs.8000/- to the petitioner from 1.7.2008 from Rs.5000/- and for direction against the second respondent to pay the consolidated pay at Rs.10,000/- as per earlier proceedings of the second respondent dated 27.11.2007 with effect from 15.9.2003. 2. The petitioner who completed his M.A. degree in Sociology, had worked in sanitation campaign, Nagapattinam District and in recognition of the same, he was appointed as District Project Coordinator on contract basis for the total sanitation in Nagapattinam District and the appointment was made by the District Collector, the second respondent by order dated 10.6.2004 on a consolidated pay of a sum of Rs.5000/- for a period of one year. 2(a). The sanitation campaign is stated to have started in Nagapattinam in 2003 and apart from the petitioner, 11 Block Coordinators have been appointed by the second respondent-District Collector and they have to improve the sanitation facilities in the village panchayat by constructing toilets in schools, anganwadis, etc. by improving the drainage facilities and other projects. 2(b). The project is run by the District Collector along with a Committee consisting of 12 members including the Assistant Director of Village Panchayat, District Chief Educational Officer, District Social Welfare Officer, etc. While the District Project Coordinator like the petitioner was paid a consolidated pay of Rs.5000/-, the Block Coordinators were paid a sum of Rs.3000/- per month which was fixed based on the resolution passed by the Chairman of the Committee and others. 2 (c). It is stated that on 27.11.2007, the District Water and Sanitation Committee Meeting was presided over by the District Collector, Nagapattinam wherein the work done between 2003 and 2007 were reviewed and it was decided to give the workers under the project a hike in their salary and accordingly, for the District Project Coordinator the monthly consolidated salary was increased to Rs.10000/- and the traveling allowance of Rs.2000/- was fixed and similarly, the salary for the Block Coordinators, the pay was fixed at Rs.4000/- with traveling allowance of Rs.500/-. This was made based on the payments made in Kancheepuram District where for District Project Coordinator a sum of Rs.12,000/- and for Block Coordinators a sum of Rs.6,000/- were fixed. 2(d). This was made based on the payments made in Kancheepuram District where for District Project Coordinator a sum of Rs.12,000/- and for Block Coordinators a sum of Rs.6,000/- were fixed. 2(d). The decision taken was to pay the said consolidated pay with effect from the date of starting of the project viz., 15.9.2003 while the payment of traveling allowance was given effect from 1.1.2008. It is stated that the increased salary was paid to the petitioner from the month of April,2008 which was given in May,2008. The petitioner made an oral representation to pay arrears, however, the District Collector passed the impugned order on 20.10.2008 as if the increased salary was from Rs.5000/- to Rs.8000/- per month while for Block Coordinators the salary was maintained at Rs.4000/- and the said increase was made with effect from 1.7.2008. 2(e). It is stated that there was no Committee meeting held for passing the impugned order. However, a show-cause notice was issued by the third respondent on 6.11.2008 alleging that the petitioner refused to receive the increased salary and obtained the District Collector’s signature in the resolution book, not replying to the earlier show cause notice dated 12.6.2008, not reaching the target fixed for the project and not submitting the project report from June to October,2008 for which the petitioner gave a suitable reply. 2(f). Since the above said action was taken only for the purpose of preventing the petitioner’s right to get the increased salary based on the proceedings of the Committee dated 27.11.2007, the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned order of the second respondent, the District Collector dated 20.10.2008 wherein the District Collector has stated that the increase in salary in respect of the petitioner being the District Project Coordinator is Rs.8000/- with effect from 1.7.2008. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent it is stated that the petitioner was appointed as District Project Coordinator on 11.6.2004 under Total Sanitation Campaign on contract basis, and the appointment was temporary on consolidated pay of Rs.5000/- per month and it is admitted that the total sanitation campaign programme was started in 2003 in Nagapattinam District. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent it is stated that the petitioner was appointed as District Project Coordinator on 11.6.2004 under Total Sanitation Campaign on contract basis, and the appointment was temporary on consolidated pay of Rs.5000/- per month and it is admitted that the total sanitation campaign programme was started in 2003 in Nagapattinam District. It is also stated that the petitioner on many occasions desisted from discharging the duties assigned to him and he failed to submit his tour diary and other records to show that there is a lack of initiative and he did not take any valid action to achieve the target. 3(a). It is stated that the District Water and Sanitation Committee meeting was not conducted on 27.11.2007 and decided to raise the consolidated pay of Rs.5000/- to Rs.10,000/- to the District Coordinators and in this regard, it is stated that the petitioner and the District Coordinators themselves prepared the minutes of meeting and managed to obtain the signature of the District Collector without the knowledge of the Project Officer, District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) as well as the Convener of the said Committee and therefore, it is the case of the second respondent that the petitioner himself guided the then District Collector as if a meeting was held on 27.11.2007 and the head of the Committee did not affix his signature. Therefore, the petitioner himself managed to obtain the approval of the then District Collector on 2.4.2008 which happened four months after the alleged meeting of the Committee dated 27.11.2007. 3(b). It is stated that no meeting of the Committee was held on 27.11.2007 or at later point of time before 20.10.2008. The special meeting was conducted on 20.10.2008 and all the District level officials of the District and NGOs were present and a resolution was passed to the effect that the consolidated pay be raised from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.8000/- to the District Project Coordinators and for the Block Coordinators the pay be raised from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,000/- with effect from 1.7.2008. 3(c). Therefore, it is stated that the petitioner’s case that on 27.11.2007, the pay was increased to Rs.10000/- with effect from 2003 is denied. 3(c). Therefore, it is stated that the petitioner’s case that on 27.11.2007, the pay was increased to Rs.10000/- with effect from 2003 is denied. It is specifically stated that the District Water and Sanitation Committee meeting was never held 27.11.2007 and it was only proposed to convene a meeting on 27.11.2007 after getting the formal approval of the then District Collector. It is stated that there are tangible evidence to prove that the meeting was not held on the said date. 3(d). The non-conducting of the meeting on 27.11.2007 is stated to be due to the reasons that the signature of the Project Officer, District Rural Development Agency, Nagapattinam was not affixed; the Assistant Director (Panchayats) has signed by putting the date as 27.1.2008; the signature of the Joint Director (Health) was found to be overwritten by affixing the actual date which was not 27.11.2007; the minutes of the meeting was signed by the Block Coordinators who are not the members of the WATSAN Committee; and the District Collector accorded the sanction only on 02.04.2008, which is four months after the date of the meeting dated 27.11.2007, which is claimed to have been conducted. 3(e). It is stated that WATSAN committee meeting was conducted by the District Collector on 20.10.2008 and all the District level officials and the District NGOs. were present and resolution was passed to increase the salary to Rs.8000/- for the District Project Coordinators with effect from 1.7.2008. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that if there was a meeting held on 20.10.2008 that should be evident by records and the order dated 20.10.2008 is only an order passed by the District Collector and it has no legal sanction. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate has produced the original registers containing the resolutions. 5. A reference to the order of appointment of the petitioner made by the second respondent dated 9.6.2004 shows that the appointment of the petitioner was pursuant to the interview held on 9.6.2004 and his appointment was to the post of District Project Coordinator on contractual basis to work for total sanitation campaign in Nagapattinam District. The appointment order shows that after the petitioner signing the contract and joining duty at the District Rural Development Agency, Nagapattinam, the appointment order would come into effect. The appointment order shows that after the petitioner signing the contract and joining duty at the District Rural Development Agency, Nagapattinam, the appointment order would come into effect. Accordingly, a contract was entered into between the Chairman of Nagapattinam District Water and Sanitation Committee and the petitioner as District Project Coordinator on 10.6.2004 which was for a period of two years. As per the contract, the petitioner was fixed a consolidated pay of Rs.5000/-p.m. without any right of permanent absorption or regularization. 6. The appointment order shows that the District Collector is the Chairman of the Nagapattinam District Water and Sanitation Committee (NDWSC) who is entitled to terminate the contract of appointment. The claim of the petitioner for enhanced salary at Rs.10,000/-per month with effect from 15.9.2003 is as per the proceedings of the District Collector dated 27.11.2007. While the case of the petitioner is that on 27.11.2007, Nagapattinam District Water and Sanitation Committee meeting was held presided over by the District Collector and participated by the members, it is the case of the respondents that such meeting which was called for on 27.11.2007 did not take place. 7. The original register relating to WATSAN Committee minutes book produced by the respondents shows at page No.29 that WATSAN Committee resolution dated 27.11.2007 was approved by the Committee. It contains the signature of the District Collector dated 2.4.2008 and other members out of whom four members signed on 27.11.2007 while one member signed on 27.1.2008 and another member viz., the Project Officer (Women) signed on 27.11.2008 and the remaining 17 members signed without putting date. Those members included the District Elementary Educational Officer, the District Social Welfare Officer, Nagapattinam, and other officials. The records show that the decision was taken on 27.11.2007 signed by the second respondent as the Chairman and the District Collector and that has been ratified by the above said signatures. 8. However, in another register called District WATSAN Committee Register, 2008-09 which starts from the resolution dated 20.10.2008, it is found that a decision has been taken for increasing the salary of the petitioner from Rs.5000/- to Rs.8000/- as District Project Coordinator and that has also been signed by the District Collector without affixing any date. A few of the members have signed with date as 20.10.2008, but that resolution had no reference to the earlier resolution dated 27.11.2007. A few of the members have signed with date as 20.10.2008, but that resolution had no reference to the earlier resolution dated 27.11.2007. Therefore, on record, there are two resolutions one is stated to have been passed on 27.11.2007 and another on 20.10.2008 and both were signed by the District Collector as the Chairman and other members. 9. The question as to whether the alleged resolution dated 27.11.2007 was signed by various members at the instance and instigation of the petitioner as the District Project Coordinator cannot be decided in this writ petition, which can only be done by way of appreciation of evidence. In the absence of any evidence, it is not possible to hold that the resolution dated 27.11.2007 has not been passed, nor the signature of the District Collector has been coercively obtained by the second respondent, especially when all other members of WATSAN Committee have signed. It is in evidence that two registers are produced one for the meeting dated 27.11.2007 and another for the meeting dated 20.10.2008 based on which the parties are making their respective claims. 10. In such circumstances, the validity or otherwise of two contradictory resolutions cannot be decided by this Court and the same has to be worked out by the parties in the appropriate forum. As admitted by the parties, the conditions of service of the petitioner are governed by the resolution passed by the WATSAN Committee and when there are two resolutions in respect of WATSAN Committee, it is for the appropriate civil forum to decide about the validity or otherwise of anyone of the resolutions. In such view of the matter, the writ petition stands dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the appropriate civil forum by filing a duly constituted suit to decide about the validity or otherwise of the resolutions. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.