IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10.06.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.No.1334 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 1. P.Perumal 2. K.Thangavel 3. A.Moorthy ... Petitioners Vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Director of Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Chennai – 600 005. 3. The District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Perambalur District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, call for the records of the 3rd respondent in Ref.Na.Ka.IA/30634/2004, dated 09.11.2005 along with connected records, re-appointing them as cooks on a consolidated pay of Rs.850/- p.m. by issuing a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quash that order insofar as petitioners herein are concerned directing the respondent to restore the order of 3rd respondent dated 05.11.2001 as regards this petitioners herein directing the respondent to restore the order of the 3rd respondent dated 05.11.2001 appointing the petitioners as time scale of pay of Rs.2550-55-2660-60-3200 and directing the respondents to pay accordingly and to pay difference of salary for the period from the said original order of appointment dated 05.11.2001 till restoration of the said order of 3rd respondent dated 05.11.2001 within a reasonable time to be fixed by this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioners : Mr.M.Kalyanasundaram, Senior Counsel For Respondents : Mr.R.Kannan Government Advocate O R D E R The writ petition is filed jointly by the three petitioners seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 3rd respondent in Ref.Na.Ka.IA/30634/2004 dated 09.11.2005 and to quash the same, with further direction to the respondents to restore the order of the third respondent dated 05.11.2001 appointing the petitioners on time scale of pay of Rs.2550-55-2660-60-3200 and further to direct the respondents to pay accordingly and to pay difference of salary for the period from the said original order of appointment dated 05.11.2001 till restoration of the said order of 3rd respondent. In view of subsequent developments have taken place, the petitioners amended the prayer seeking a direction to the respondent to restore the order of the 3rd respondent dated 05.11.2001 insofar as the petitioners are concerned with further direction to restore the order of the 3rd respondent dated 05.11.2011, appointing the petitioners in time scale of pay of Rs.2550-55-2600-60- 3200 and directing the respondents to pay accordingly and to pay difference of salary for the period from the original order of appointment dated 05.01.2011, till the restoration of the order of the 3rd respondent, within a reasonable time. 2. Mr.M.Kalyanasundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that originally 20 persons were appointed as cooks. Among these 20 persons, the petitioners were also appointed as cook in the Adi Dravidar Welfare Hostels situated across the state on time scale of pay of Rs.2550-66-2660-60-3220. After the appointment of the above mentioned cooks through the employment exchange, a complaint was filed alleging that some irregularities are made in the appointment. Therefore, the appointment of all these 20 cooks were cancelled by order dated 21.12.2001. Aggrieved by the said order, 5 out of 20 cooks approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.Nos.180 to 184 of 2002. The learned Tribunal, after considering the case of the petitioner, finally by order dated 11.02.2003, allowed the Original Application of the said five cooks by setting aside the cancellation order dated 21.12.2001. As a result, all these 5 persons were reappointed as cooks in the same Adi Dravidar Welfare Hostels on consolidated pay. Subsequently, 15 other cooks also came to be appointed on consolidated pay by order dated 09.11.2005 issued by the third respondent. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed before this Court seeking to restore the original order dated 05.11.2001 appointing the cooks on time scale of pay. 3. This Court, by order dated 05.08.2009, holding that the 8 other https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ cooks are entitled to the time scale of pay with continuity of service from the date of original appointment, further held in the said order that in respect of the payment of salary for the period unserved (i.e.) from the date of termination till date of reappointment, the petitioners shall make a separate representation to the appropriate authority and if any such representation is made, the same shall be considered by the authority on its own merits. It was further clarified that if any payment has been made with regard to other persons similarly placed, the petitioners in the said writ petition can also be given appropriate relief by exercising the discretion by the respondent department. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent on the basis of the order passed by this Court, 8 of the cooks made their representation by seeking a payment of the salary for the unserved period i.e. from the date of termination till the date of reappointment, on 05.05.2010 granting 50% of the salary for the period of unserved. On the basis of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.14514 of 2006 dated 05.08.2009, 2 more cooks approached this Court by filing W.P.Nos.6714 and 6715 of 2007 and this Court once again by order dated 23.09.2010, allowed the writ petitions directing the respondents to fix the same time scale of pay to the petitioners with effect from the date of their appointment, by quashing the order dated 06.10.2006. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that 20 cooks were originally appointed in various Adi Dravidar Welfare Hostels situated across the state on time scale of pay, Though the said original order dated 05.11.2001 was cancelled on 21.12.2001, subsequently, by various order passed by the Tribunal and High Court, all the cooks except the three writ petitioners have got their re-appointment along with the payment of salary for the unserved period i.e. from the date of termination till the date of reappointment on consolidated pay. When the respondents have considered the case of 19 other cooks similarly placed like that of the petitioners by granting them on time scale of pay along with making payment to the unserved period, the three petitioners should also be equally treated. On that basis, he prayed for allowing the present writ petition. 5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the present writ petition filed by these three persons cannot be equated with other persons for the reason that all other cooks, who are able to get the reappointment on consolidated pay have approached this Court without wasting more time and their cases were subsequently considered by the respondents, since these people have slept over the matter for quite long time, the benefit granted to all other persons cannot be extended to all these people on the ground of lapse of time caused by the petitioners by approaching this Court belatedly. 6. This argument made by the learned Government Advocate does not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ hold good for the simple reason that the two petitioners also got reappointment on 09.11.2005 along with other similarly placed cooks on consolidated pay. When the respondents have considered the case of the petitioners to that of similarly placed, I do not find any good reason to deny the benefit which were given to other cooks, who were also appointed along with the petitioners on 09.11.2005. Though this Court in its order dated 05.08.2009 and another order dated 23.09.2010 have given a direction to the respondents to grant time scale of pay with effect from the date of their appointment and when those orders were impleaded in respect of other persons who are similarly placed like the petitioners, the respondents cannot deny the same benefit as it otherwise would amount to discrimination which cannot be permitted by Article 14 of the constitution of India. 7. Secondly, the order dated 05.05.2010 granting 50% of the salary for unserved period from the date of termination till the date of re- appointment period on consolidated pay shall also be considered in the case of the petitioner on making the proper application and shall also be considered by the respondent by exercising their own discretion. In respect of the appointment on time scale by order of this Court in the above mentioned writ petition, I have no other option except to allow by giving a direction to the 3rd respondent to pass order, granting the time scale of pay as it was originally granted in order dated 05.11.2001, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made very clear that the payment of salary for the unserved period will be left to the discretion of the respondents. 8. With the above observations, the petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ogy To 1.The Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The Director of Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Chennai – 600 005. 3. The District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Perambalur District. +1cc to Mr.G.Sethuraman, Advocate Sr 34130 +1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 33631 RS(CO) km/7.7. W.P.No.1334 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/