IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 18-07-2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.15398 of 2006 O.A.No. 2864 of 1994 N.Mathivanan .. Petitioner. Versus 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, Home Department, Madras-9. 2.The Director General of Police, Madras-4. 3.Tmt.R.Savithri .. Respondents. Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 2nd respondent vide Rc.No.271691/SI(2)/89, dated 16.12.92, passed in pursuance of the letter of the 1st respondent in No.177182/Ser.G/90-12, dated 12.7.92 and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to bring the pay of the applicant on par with the 3rd respondent with effect from the date on which the 3rd respondent is getting higher pay than the applicant in the post of Assistant. For Petitioner : Mr.Muthumani Doraisami For Respondents : Mr.T.Seenivasan Additional Government Pleader (R1 & R2) O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first and second respondents. 2. The petitioner has stated that he had joined as a Typist, on 9.12.71. He became qualified for appointment to the post of Assistant, on 16.5.76, by passing all the requisite tests. Based on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ his qualification, he was promoted as an Assistant, on 23.7.79. The petitioner was drawing the annual increment, for every year, in the month of October. Since the petitioner had got his promotion, on 23.7.79, he had made a representation to the respondent to pay the salary due to him in the higher post of Assistant only from the month of October 1979, so as to enable him to earn his annual increment in the lower post, on 1.10.79, before fixing his pay in the promoted post. The petitioner's request was rejected by the second respondent, on 30.8.79. 3. The petitioner has further stated that even though the third respondent is junior to the petitioner, she is getting more pay than the petitioner in the post of Assistant. The third respondent was appointed as a Typist, on 14.8.72. She had passed the requisite test for getting further promotion only in the month of November 1982, nearly 6 ½ years after the petitioner became qualified for promotion. The third respondent was promoted as an Assistant only on 29.7.83, i.e. four years after the petitioner got his promotion as an Assistant. After the petitioner came to know that the third respondent was receiving more pay from the time of her promotion as an Assistant, he had made a representation to the second respondent, on 18.1.87, requesting for refixation of his pay on par with the third respondent. The request of the petitioner was rejected by the second respondent by proceedings, dated 13.9.89. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal to the first respondent on 30.1.89. The second respondent, vide his Letter No.Rc.No.271691/Staff.I(2)/89, dated 26.9.91, had recommended for issuing specific orders to refix the pay of the petitioner on par with his junior, as a special case, in view of the fact that the existing orders/rules cannot be invoked in favour of the petitioner. Without considering the recommendation made by the second respondent, the first respondent had rejected the claim of the petitioner, vide Letter No.177182/Ser.G/90-12, dated 12.7.1992, as communicated by the second respondent, vide memorandum Rc.No.271691/SI(2)/89, dated 16.12.92, stating that the third respondent was promoted as an Assistant from the post of Junior Assistant, whereas the petitioner was promoted from the post of Typist and as such,the condition laid down in Ruling (2) under F.R.22(B) for stepping up the pay of the senior on par with the junior are not satisfied and hence, the request of the petitioner to step up his pay on par with the third respondent cannot be complied with. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed an original application before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2864 of 1994, which has been transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.15398 of 2006. 4. No reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has not been in a position to deny the claims made by the petitioner by placing before this Court the necessary records relating to the matter. However, he had stated that it is seen from the communication of the Additional Secretary to the Government, Home (Ser.G), Department, dated 12.7.92, Chennai, that the petitioner was promoted from the post of Typist, whereas his junior, R.Savithri, was promoted as an Assistant from the post of Junior Assistant and as such the conditions laid down in Ruling (2) under F.R.22(B) for stepping up the pay of the senior, on par with the junior are not satisfied 6. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had pointed out that it would suffice if the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the first respondent, with regard to the reliefs sought for by the petitioner in the writ petition and the first respondent is directed to dispose of the same, on merits, within a specified period. However, he had submitted that the impugned proceedings, dated 12.7.92, issued on behalf of the first respondent and the proceedings in Rc.No.271691/SI(2)/89, dated 16.12.92, issued by the second respondent may be set aside, to enable the first and the second respondent to consider the request of the petitioner, afresh, in view of the representation to be submitted by the petitioner. 7. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings, dated 12.7.92, it is found that it is a communication issued by the Additional Secretary to Government, Home (Ser.G) Department, addressed to the Director General of Police, Chennai, and it has not been addressed to the petitioner. The second impugned proceedings in Rc.No.271691/SI(2)/89, dated 16.12.92, communicated to the petitioner enclosing the proceedings, dated 12.7.92, does not give any reason for rejecting the request of the petitioner except saying that his request cannot be complied with. 8. In such circumstances, it is seen that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to submit his explanation, in spite of his request, before the impugned proceedings were issued. Therefore, the impugned proceedings of the second respondent in Rc.No.271691/SI(2)/ 89, dated 16.12.92, is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to submit a detailed representation to the first respondent, with regard to the reliefs sought for in the writ petition, within a period of four weeks from today and on such representation being submitted, the first respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks thereafter. Since the impugned proceedings, dated 12.7.92, is an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ internal communication sent from the office of the first respondent to the second respondent, this Court is of the view that it is not necessary for the said proceedings to be set aside, at this stage. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with the above directions. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. csh To 1. The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, Madras-9. 2.The Director General of Police, Madras-4. + 1 CC To M/s.Muthumani Doraisami, Advocate SR NO.38644 + 1 CC to the Government Pleader SR NO.38710 W.P.No.15398 of 2006 MG {CO} TP/24.7.08 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/