IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 5.2.2008 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI W.A.No.2662 of 2004 A.Calevanane .. Appellant (Petitioner) Vs The Managing Director Pondicherry Tourism and Transport Development Corporation Limited (A Government of Pondicherry undertaking) Pondicherry – 605 001. .. Respondent (Respondent) PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters patent Against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 4.3.2004 made in W.P.No.5103 of 2004. Petition presented to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order bearing No. C. D. No. 754, dated 26.10.2002 issued by the respondent corporation and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to re designate the petitioner's position as “cook” in the scale of pay of Rs.3050-4590 with retrospective effect from 1.1.2000. For Appellant : Mr.N.Venkatesan for M/s.G.R.Swaminathan For Respondent : Mr.John Kennedy for M/s.T.Arulraj JUDGMENT (Delivered by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.) The unsuccessful writ petitioner in W.P.No.5103 of 2004 is the appellant in the present appeal, which arises under the following facts and circumstances of the case. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. For the purpose of convenience the parties are arrayed as per their rank in the writ petition. 3.1. The petitioner was engaged as a Cook on contract basis by the order of the respondent dated 22.5.1993. In the said proceedings, it was made clear that he was engaged as a Cook on contract basis initially for a period of six months from the date of joining service; that the said period may either be extended or reduced by the Management at its sole discretion; that he would be paid a consolidated amount of Rs.850/- per month; that his appointment would neither confer any regular employment in the Corporation nor the petitioner would have any right for the same; and that the contract is subject to termination by giving one month notice on either side or one month's contractual fee in lieu thereof. 3.2. By proceedings dated 21.4.1995, the respondent enhanced and fixed the wage of the petitioner as Rs.1500/- per month with effect from 1.4.1995. By proceedings dated 20.12.1997, the wage of the petitioner was enhanced to Rs.1950/- per month with effect from 1.9.1997, and thereafter by proceedings dated 25.5.1999, the pay of the petitioner was enhanced to Rs.2250/- per month with effect from 1.5.1999. 3.3. The respondent by proceedings dated 13.1.2000 decided to absorb the petitioner as an Assistant Cook on ad hoc basis in the scale of Rs.2550-55-2660-60-3200/-. The petitioner after availing the regular employment made a representation on 20.12.2001 to the respondent stating that he should have been absorbed in the post of Cook, but not as an Assistant Cook. As the said representation of the petitioner was not considered by the respondent, he preferred W.P.No.30842 of 2002 and this Court, by order dated 29.7.2002, directed the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on merits within six weeks. 3.4. The respondent, in compliance of the order dated 29.7.2002 made in W.P.No.30842 of 2002, considered the representation of the petitioner dated 20.12.2001 and rejected the request of the petitioner by proceedings dated 26.10.2002. Hence, the petitioner preferred W.P.No.5103 of 2004 for issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order bearing C.D.No.754, dated 26.10.2002 issued by the respondent, to quash the same and to consequently direct the respondent to re-designate the petitioner's position as "Cook" in the scale of pay of Rs.3050-4590 with retrospective effect from 1.1.2000. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.5. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 4.3.2004, dismissed W.P.No.5103 of 2004 observing that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to review the order passed by the statutory authorities is very limited as to the procedural irregularity or as to the jurisdictional issues and that it may not be proper for this Court, exercising Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to generally interfere with the ultimate reasoning given on facts, dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent, having absorbed similarly placed persons for the post of Cook carrying the scale of pay of Rs.3050-4590/-, viz., a higher scale of pay than that being drawn by the petitioner, the same yardstick should have been adopted to the petitioner also and failure to do violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5.1. The respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit substantiating the stand taken in the impugned order dated 26.10.2002. According to the respondent, the petitioner does not suffer any reversion or loss of remuneration, as he was working as a Cook on contract basis with a consolidated pay of Rs.2250/- per month and was absorbed as Assistant Cook on ad hoc basis in the scale of Rs.2550-55-2660-60-3200/-, which is higher than the consolidated pay that was drawn by the petitioner as a Cook on contract basis. 5.2. It was also explained by the respondent that comparison between the petitioner and other employees is not tenable as other employees, who were absorbed by the respondent are seniors to the petitioner and they were absorbed as per their seniority and merit; and that the position of the petitioner in the seniority list is below the other employees who were promoted as Cook, viz., ninth in the seniority list and therefore, there is no discrimination or violation to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 6. We have given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides. 7. Concededly, the petitioner was employed on contract basis with a consolidated pay of Rs.850/- per month. His wage was enhanced to Rs.1500/- per month with effect from 1.4.1995 by proceedings dated 21.4.1995; to Rs.1950/- per month with 1.9.1997 by proceedings dated 20.12.1997; and thereafter to Rs.2250/- per month with effect from 1.5.1999, by proceedings dated 25.5.1999. Be that be, the respondent by proceedings dated 13.1.2000, after accommodating the seniors to the petitioner, absorbed the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner as an Assistant Cook on ad hoc basis in the scale of Rs.2550-55-2660-60-3200/-, which is higher than the consolidated pay of Rs.2250/-, which he earned as a Cook on contract basis. 8. In view of the above factual scenario, we are unable to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner that he was absorbed in a lower rank, viz., Assistant Cook, as the fact remains that he was absorbed as an Assistant Cook on ad hoc basis in the scale of pay of Rs.2550-55-2660-60-3200/-, whereas he was working on contract basis with consolidated pay of Rs.2250/- per month, and moreover the other employees who were absorbed as Cooks are all seniors to the petitioner. Finding no merits, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. Sasi Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To The Managing Director Pondicherry Tourism and Transport Development Corporation Limited (A Government of Pondicherry undertaking) Pondicherry – 605 001. + 1 cc to Mr. T. Arulraj, Advocate SR No. 6200 + 1 cc to Mr. G. R. Swaminathan, Advocate SR No. 5795 W.A.No.2662 of 2004 VC(CO) SR/14.2.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/