IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 16.6.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. Justice T.RAJA W.P.No. 34056 of 2006(T) O.A.No.9285 of 1998 S.Ramachandran ... Petitioner vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department Fort St. George Chennai- 9. 2. The Commissioner Municipal Administration Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. 3. The Commissioner, Nagercoil Municipality Nagercoil. ... Respondents PRAYER: This Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No.9285 of 1998 from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second and third respondents pertaining to proceedings Na.Ka.No.41789/98/H-1 dated 20.08.1998 and proceedings in Na.Ka.No.102/98/C-1 dated 21.08.1998 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to rectify the anomaly in the scale of pay of the petitioner and fix the scale of pay of the petitioner on par with the scale of pay of the said Peichiammal from 01.06.1988 and further direct the respondent to pay arrears with interest at 18% p.a from the date on which the anomaly was crept in or from 01.06.1988. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner : Mr.P.K.Sabapathi For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.V.Manoharan Govt. Advocate For Respondent 3 : Mr.M.Devadoss O R D E R On abolition of the Tribunal, the Original Application in O.A.No.9285 of 1999 filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.34056 of 2006. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Bill Collector in the Nagercoil Municipality on 01.08.1977 and after five years of service, he was promoted as a Junior Assistant on 30.10.1982. Whileso, one C.Pechiammal, was also appointed as a Bill Collector on 01.02.1978. The said C.Pechiammal, is a junior to the petitioner in service and the scale of pay fixed for the petitioner and the said C.Pechiammal, is an identical scale of pay at the time of their initial appointments. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said C.Pechiammal, being a junior to the petitioner in service, she was getting more scale of pay than him. On the basis of G.O.Ms.No. 57 dated 28.01.1991, the petitioner is entitled to get the same scale of pay by way of stepping up on par with that of his junior. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after compliance of necessary conditions such as the departmental examination and the minimum requirements, the petitioner was promoted as Junior Assistant. Whereas, the said C.Pechiammal, having not opted for Departmental Examination, a requisite qualification for getting promotion, she continued in the same post as Bill Collector and reached the stage of Selection Grade in the same post. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that had the petitioner continued in his substantive post as Bill Collector, he would have also reached the Selection Grade in that post and as a result, he would have also got more scale of pay than his junior C.Pechiammal. On that basis, it was submitted that when the said C.Pechiammal, was given Selection Grade, her scale of pay was fixed at Rs.1200-30-1560-40-2040 from 01.06.1988. Whereas, the petitioner's scale of pay was fixed unfortunately at Rs.975-25-1150- 30-1660 from 01.06.1988, without any basis. Admittedly, the petitioner being a senior in service, as he was appointed as Bill Collector on 01.08.1977, and the said C.Pechiammal, was appointed on 01.02.1978, the respondents should have fixed the same scale of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ pay on par with C.Pechiammal. On the basis of the G.O.Ms.No. 57 dated 28.01.1991, since the same was not considered, the petitioner gave number of representations requesting the respondents to consider the same. But there was no response on the side of the respondents and the plight of the petitioner was also not considered by them. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to file an application in O.A.No.9285 of 1998, on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and the same was transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.34056 of 2006. 4 On the basis of the above said submissions supported by the G.O.Ms.No.57 dated 28.01.1991, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for allowing the present Writ Petition. 5. Per contra, the Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 as well as the learned counsel for the third respondent, though they made a feeble attempt to distinguish the case of the petitioner, they were unable to get over the G.O.Ms.No.57 dated 28.01.1991. Even the counter filed by the third respondent has not dealt with the important points raised by the petitioner, as supported in the above said G.O. 6. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Bill Collector on 01.08.1977, and within seven years of service from the date of his appointment, he was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant, after passing the Departmental Examination. But the said C.Pechiammal, continued as only a Bill Collector. In view of the fact that the petitioner, after his appointment as Bill Collector promoted to the post of Junior Assistant, the scale of pay given to the petitioner should have been increased more than the said C.Pechiammal. But unfortunately, in spite of the issuance of G.O.Ms.No. 57 dated 28.01.1991, stating that if the junior happens to draw more scale of pay than the senior, then the pay of the senior shall also be stepped up on par with that of the junior, the respondents failed to consider the representations made by the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Bill Collector on 01.08.1977 and the said C.Pechiammal, also came to be appointed as Bill Collector on 01.02.1978, in the same Department, viz., Nagercoil Municipality. Whileso, the respondents should have considered the case of the petitioner, when the petitioner made his representations informing the pay anomaly suffered by the petitioner. When the said C.Pechiammal, was given Selection Grade, her scale of pay was fixed at Rs.1200-3-1560-40-2040 from 01.06.1988. Whereas, the petitioner's scale of pay was fixed unfortunately at Rs.975-25-1150-30-1660, from 01.06.1988. It is not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ known, when the petitioner has brought to the notice of the respondents stating that he was appointed much earlier to C.Pechiammal, on 01.08.1977, as Bill Collector, the respondents should have considered the case of the petitioner on the basis of the G.O.Ms.No.57 dated 28.01.1991, as extracted hereunder: " A Government Servant should have drawn more pay in the lower officiating post either in the selection grade of lower post or in the Special Grade of lower post, had he contined in it that in the higher officiating post or Selection Grade/Special Grade in which he is actually working his pay in the scale of pay of higher officiating post of Selection Grade/Special Grade shall be refixed at a stage of equal to the pay in the lower post/Selection Grade or Secial Grade of lower post, if there is a stage or at the next higher stage." 8. A mere perusal of para 4 of the G.O.Ms.No.57 dated 28.01.1991, leaves no doubt to consider the case of the petitioner in his favour by stepping up his pay on par with his junior viz., C.Pechiammal, who has joined service on 01.02.1978. Since the said anomaly has not been considered, in spite of the acceptance of the G.O.Ms.No.57 dated 28.01.1991, this Court has no other option except to allow the prayer of the petitioner in his favour and accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by quashing the impugned order passed by the respondents as unsustainable in law. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 9. In view of the pendency of the matter for a long time, the respondents are directed to pay the arrears of the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the respondents are liable to pay the interest at the rate of 10%. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar sd https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Secretary to Government Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department Fort St. George Chennai- 9. 2. The Commissioner Municipal Administration Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. 3. The Commissioner, Nagercoil Municipality Nagercoil. +1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 43517 +1cc to Mr.P.K.Sabapathi, Advocate Sr 43161 +1cc to Mr.M.Devadoss,Advocate Sr 43005 SSK(CO) km/14.7. W.P.No. 34056 of 2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/