IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 04.01.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA Writ Petition No.22063 of 2009 1. N.Arumugam 2. M.K.Sivagurunathan 3. S.Deivasigamani 4. N.Ramu 5. V.K.Harikrishnan 6. P.M.Subramanian 7. V.Govindaswami 8. D.Anthonimuthu 9. A.Subramani 10.R.Govindan 11.M.Shahul Hameed 12. R.Narasimhan 13. R.dayanandam 14. M.Sampath Kumar 15. G.Sivarani 16. S.Srinivasan 17. K.Prakasam 18. T.Jagadeesan 19. P.Mani 20. B.Srinivasan 21. N.R.Natarajan 22. R.Rayarathinam 23. B.N.Subramaniyam 24. J.Seshachalam 25. P.Pushparathinam 26. C.Indirani .. Petitioners Vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Home (Court V) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Accountant General (A & E), Tamil Nadu, No.361, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 018. .. Respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to extend the benefits granted to the similarly placed petitioners in W.P.Nos.34846, 34847, 34559 and 34560/2005 as per the orders of this Court dated 10.3.2006 and that of the compliance of the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.563 Home (Courts V) Department dated 20.-07-2009 and to extend the same benefit to the petitioners. For Petitioner : Mr.A.R.Xixon For Respondents : Mrs.Malarvizhi Udayakumar,Spl.G.P. For R1. No appearance for R2 O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioners have sought for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to extend the benefits granted to the similarly placed petitioners in W.P.Nos.34846, 34847, 34559 and 34560/2005, as per the orders of this Court dated 10.3.2006 and that of the compliance of the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.563 Home (Courts V) Department dated 20.07.2009 and to extend the same benefit to the petitioners. 2. The affidavit filed in support of the petition is perused. The Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the respondent/State. 3. The only grievance ventilated by the petitioners is that this Court had an occasion to consider the case of the employees who are similarly placed like that of the petitioners in respect of the benefits to be granted to them and considering the same, the Court passed an order in W.P.No.34846, 34847, 34559 and 34560 of 2005 on 10.3.2006. 4. Pointing to the order already made, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that though the petitioners have not approached this Court, they are similarly placed employees and there cannot be any discrimination in granting the benefit of the above said G.O. regarding fixation of pay in the promotion post. 5. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioners would urge that a representation was made and it is pending in the hands of the Government and on that ground, on the last occasion, the matter was adjourned. Now, the representation made by the petitioners still remains to be considered. Under such circumstances, there may not any impediment for this Court in directing the Government to consider the representation made by the petitioners, at the earliest, taking https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ into consideration, the judgment made by this Court in W.P.Nos.34846, 34847, 34559 and 34560 of 2005. 6. It is not in controversy that the writ petitions viz., W.P.Nos.34846, 34847, 34559 and 34560 of 2005 were filed before this Court and this Court, on considering the merits of the matter, has pass order on 10.3.2006 which runs as follows: "It is obvious that the Department has granted the benefit only to those persons who have filed the writ petition earlier and the same is being denied to others who are similarly placed only on the ground that they have not filed writ petitions. Such a stand cannot be countenanced in the eye of law. However, it is accepted that as and when they are promoted to higher post, they are not entitled to the benefit of personal pay. It is not denied that the petitioners who were similarly placed were deprived of the benefit of personal pay during the relevant period. The only contention is that they are unable to entertain the claim of the petitioners because they were not parties to the earlier orders of the Court. Such an argument is not legally tenable. In the matter of pay and emoluments, there cannot be any discrimination to be employees on the ground that a group of persons have not approached the Court seeking redressal of their grievance. The law will apply uniformly to all persons who are similarly placed. The benefit of the G.O. will be applicable to all the employees who are similarly placed. The question of seeking remedy in a court of law by each and every employee similarly placed will be unfair and unjust. As it is, the Courts are clogged with cases and the Government is required to take a pragmatic view of the matter and the benefits to the Government employees should not be denied at the whims and fancies of the administration. There is no impediment to implement the above said G.O. in favour of the petitioners. The clarification letters which are being issued from time to time are absolutely untenable and contrary to various judicial pronouncements on this issue. The petitioners are therefore, entitled to the benefit of the above said G.O." 7. Thus, it is quite clear that the Court had occasion to consider the representation made in the earlier application and has passed the order to the effect that though the petitioners have not approached the Court, there could not be any impediment in giving the benefit of the Government order so long as the petitioners are equally placed. Now, the representation made by the petitioners is also pending in the hands of the State. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. Under such circumstances, the first respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioners on the basis of the judgment made by this Court in W.P.Nos.34846, 34847, 34559 and 34560 of 2005 dated 10.3.2006 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar vsi To 1. The Secretary, Home (Court V) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Accountant General (A & E), Tamil Nadu, No.361, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 018 + 1 cc to Mr.A.R.Nixon, Advocate,SR.467 W.P.No.22063 of 2009 RV(CO) EM/11.1.10 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/