Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2422 (MAD)

N. Dwarakadas v. State of Tamil Nadu

2012-06-13

M.VENUGOPAL

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petitions for issuance of writs of mandamus, seeking a direction being issued to the respondent to implement the order of this Court dated 21.4.2006 passed in W.P. Nos.7971, 11779, 11780, 19938, 24951, 29471, 20328 of 2004 and 1393 to 1399 of 2005 and to quash the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai in O.A. No.3643 of 1999 dated 12.1.2004. 2. The petitioners have been appointed in the Secretariat service and included in the one unit as per G.O.Ms.No.70 Public Service Department dated 17.1.1961 and got themselves qualified. Their Association though taken steps, the respondent treated the staff of the Finance Department as a special childand discriminated the staff of the other departments otherwise. Consequently, a person, who is far junior to them, has secured promotion by leaps and bounds and ultimately retired as Joint Secretary to the Government. In O.A. No.166 of 1990, before the Tribunal, seeking parity in promotion, an order dated 16.4.1993 has been passed to formulate amendment to special Rules. The respondent passed G.O.Ms.No.30 P & AR (D Department) dated 28.1.1994 giving retrospective effect from 5.6.1970, the date of panelization along with Finance Department cadres. A review application filed by the respondent has been rejected. 3. Therefore, the respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.338 P & A.R. (U Department) dated 8.11.1995, which benefited only two applicants. However, the respondent issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.126 P & A.R. (U. Spl. department) dated 29.5.1998 that the pay of the seniors in one unit, who have been recruited before 28.1.1994, shall be stepped up on par with their juniors in Finance Department, upgrading the post held by them the scale of pay applicable to their juniors from 29.5.1998.The appendix I of the G.O. dated 29.5.1998 contains names of 1,222 seniors (existing staff). 4. The stand of the petitioners is that the retrospective effect from 5.6.1970 shall mean that the seniority list as on 5.6.1970 shall be the basis and appendix I of the G.O. dated 29.5.1998, which shall consist of such of the seniors right from 5.6.1970 till 29.5.1998 alone is the proper, reasonable and legal interpretation that could be arrived at. However, the respondent rejected their just claim by their letter No.33163/U.Spl.2000-1 P & A.R. Department dated 29.6.2000 and the said letter mentions that G.O.Ms.No.126 P & A.R. (U. Spl. However, the respondent rejected their just claim by their letter No.33163/U.Spl.2000-1 P & A.R. Department dated 29.6.2000 and the said letter mentions that G.O.Ms.No.126 P & A.R. (U. Spl. Department) dated 29.5.1998 is not applicable to those persons, who retired from service prior to 29.5.1998. 5. According to the petitioners, their prayer in O.A. No.166 of 1990 is in accordance with the directions given in G.O.Ms.No.30 P & A.R. (D) Department dated 28.1.1994. On the date of the said G.O., the petitioners have been in service and hence it is their plea that the panel should be modified as on 5.6.1970. It is not the intention of the Tribunal to confirm benefits upon only two applicants and as a matter of fact, the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.126 P & A.R. (U.Spl. Department) dated 29.5.1998 has not enforced the real spirit of the order of the Tribunal and the tenor of the G.O.Ms.No.30 P & A.R. (D) dated 28.1.1994. 6. A perusal of the G.O.Ms.No.126 P&A.R. (U.Spl. Department) dated 29.5.1998 shows that it is concerned with the rectification of anomaly between the seniors in one unit and their juniors in finance unit and for extending the benefits of the upgradation and special pay of seniors on par with their juniors, necessary orders have been issued. 7. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai in O.A. Nos.2650 of 1988 etc. batch, has passed an order on 12.1.2004 inter-alia holding that all the applicants are not eligible for revision of pay, because, they have filed the petitions after limitation period and consequently, it has not found any illegality or impropriety vitiating the impugned G.O. in G.O.Ms.No.126 P & A.R. (U.Spl) Department dated 29.5.1998. In W.P. Nos.7971 of 2004 etc. batch, by an order dated 21.4.2006, a Division Bench of this Court has held in paragraph 21 as follows:- " 21. In the absence of any express provision in G.O.Ms.No.126 to make it applicable to only those who were in service on 29.5.1998 or thereafter, we feel it appropriate to construe that the G.O. is applicable to all who were employed in ONE UNIT of the Secretariat before 28.1.1994 as contemplated in paragraph 10 or who were employed in the Finance Department as contemplated in paragraph 11 of the G.O." Consequently, the Bench quashed the common order delivered by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. 8. 8. Further, it is declared that the pay of each petitioner shall be notionally fixed at par with the pay of immediate junior of such petitioners selected under the very same selection process and employed in the Finance Department. On the basis of such notional fixation of pay at par with the juniors as contemplated in G.O.Ms.No.126 dated 29.5.1998, the pension payable to each of the petitioner shall be revised and paid to such petitioner with effect from 29.5.1998. Also it has been made clear that no amount is payable to any of the petitioners either towards salary or pension for the period anterior to 29.5.1998 and four months time has been granted for compliance of the order and allowed the writ petitions subject to the directions mentioned supra. 9. Likewise, the learned single Judge of this Court, in W.P. Nos.24911 to 24913 of 2006, by an order dated 9.8.2006, (filed by M.N. Raghavan, K. Dhananjeyan and P.M. Nagarajan), disposed of the said writ petitions, following the Division Bench order dated 21.4.2006 in W.P. Nos.7971 of 2004 etc. batch. 10. The order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 21.4.2006 in W.P. Nos.7971 of 2004 etc. batch and also the order dated 9.8.2006 passed by this Court, in W.P. Nos.24911 to 24913 of 2006 have become final and conclusive between the parties. Therefore, it binds parties inter se. 11. In view of the fact that the petitioners in the writ petitions before this Court are similarly placed and taking note of the fact that the order of this Court dated 21.4.2006 passed in W.P. Nos.7971 of 2004 etc. batch and the order dated 9.8.2006 passed by this Court in W.P. Nos.24911 to 24913 of 2006 are applicable to the case of the petitioners on force, this Court allows the present writ petitions by holding that the pay of each of the petitioners shall be notionally fixed at par with the pay of the immediate juniors of such petitioners selected under the very same selection process and employed in the Finance Department. On the basis of such notional fixation of pay at par with the junior as contemplated in G.O.Ms.No.126 dated 29.5.1998, the pension payable to each of the petitioners shall be revised and paid to such petitioners with effect from 29.5.1998. 12. On the basis of such notional fixation of pay at par with the junior as contemplated in G.O.Ms.No.126 dated 29.5.1998, the pension payable to each of the petitioners shall be revised and paid to such petitioners with effect from 29.5.1998. 12. It is made clear that no amount is payable to any of the petitioners either towards salary or pension for the period anterior to 29.5.1998. Four months time is granted for compliance of the order passed by this Court from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. The writ petitions are allowed with the above directions. However, there shall be no order as to costs.