In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 5.1.2009 Coram: The Honourable Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya, The Acting Chief Justice and The Honourable Mr.Justice V.Dhanapalan Writ Appeal No.1261 of 2008 & M.P.No.1 of 2008 1. The Chief Engineer, Department of Agriculture Engineering, 328, Annasalai, Nandanam, Chennai-35. 2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Agriculture Engineering, Tractor Workshop, Tirunelveli-7. .. Appellants/Respondents vs. 1. L.Ramachandran 2. D.Anbaiyan 3. V.Arumugam 4. D.Vincent 5. P.Kallathian .. Respondents/Petitioners Writ Appeal against the order of the single Judge of this Court, dated 28.1.2008 in Writ Petition No.20395 of 2006 (O.A.No.2794 of 1995). Presented to this Court to quash and set aside the impugned order/Proceedings of the 2nd respondent bearing No.Nee/2863/94 dated 23.4.95 and to direct the respondents to continue to pay personal pay of 5% basic pay to the petitioners in accordance with G.O.No.664, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 24.8.92. For appellants : Mr.Raja Kalifulla, Govt. Pleader Judgment (Judgment of the Court delivered by The Honourable The Acting Chief Justice) This Writ Appeal has been preferred by the State against the order dated 28.1.2008 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.20395 of 2006 (O.A.No.2794 of 1995 since transferred to this Court). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ By the said order, the learned single Judge allowed the Writ Petition (Original Application) preferred by the respondents-writ petitioners and directed the appellants-State to continue to pay the Personal Pay of 5% of Basic Pay to the respondents-writ petitioners in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.664, dated 24.8.1992, issued from Finance (Pay Cell) Department. 2. The respondents-writ petitioners were functioning as Fitter Grade-I, Machinist Grade-I and Welder Grade-I, respectively, in the Office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Agriculture Engineering, Tractor Workshop, Tirunelveli. All of them had put in more than ten years of service in their respective cadres in which they were initially appointed. Consequently, they were given Selection Grade in the respective categories. After the Fifth Pay Commission, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.664, dated 24.8.1992, issued from Finance (Pay Cell) Department, and allowed 5% of Basic Pay computed as on 1.8.1992 as Personal Pay, to the following categories of employees: "(i) All categories of staff in the pre-revised scales of pay at Rs.475-775 moving over to the revised scales of pay of Rs.775-1030. (ii) All categories of staff in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.610-1075 moving over to the revised scale of pay of Rs.950-1500 or Rs.975- 1660. (iii) All categories of staff in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.705-1230 moving over to the revised scale of pay of Rs.1200-2040, and (iv) All categories of staff in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.905-1545 moving over to the revised scale of pay of Rs.1600-2660." 3. It appears that the respondents-writ petitioners claimed that they were in the time scale of pay of Rs.610-1075 and therefore, were to move over to the scale of pay of Rs.950-1660. Subsequently, on completion of ten years, their Selection Grade was fixed in the scale of pay of Rs.1200-2040. As per the Government Order as quoted above, those who were in the scale of pay of Rs.610-1075 and moved over to Rs.950-1660, were eligible for the benefit of 5% of the Basic Pay. On that basis, initially, orders were passed granting the benefit of 5% of Basic Pay to the respondents-writ petitioners, but subsequently, the same was cancelled by the order passed by the second appellant- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Assistant Executive Engineer, Agriculture Engineering, Tractor Workshop, Tirunelveli-7, dated 23.4.1995, giving rise to the filing of the Original Application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, and the case was subsequently transferred to this Court and decided by the learned single Judge by the impugned order dated 28.1.2008 in Writ Petition No.20395 of 2006 (Original Application No.2794 of 1995). 4. The stand taken by the appellants-State is that the pre- revised scale of the respondents-writ petitioners was Rs.555-970 and not Rs.610-1075. The learned single Judge having noticed the rival contentions, allowed the Writ Petition, as according to the learned single Judge, if the benefit would not have been granted in favour of the writ petitioners, it would have amounted to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5. Having heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants-State, while we are not deliberating on the disputed question of fact as to in which pre-revised scale of pay the respondents-writ petitioners were working, particular, in view of the Enclosure (along with the order dated 23.4.1995) filed and signed by the second appellant-Assistant Executive Engineer, Tirunelveli, which shows that they were in the time scale of pay of Rs.610-1075, even for the sake of argument, if we accept that they were in the unrevised scale of Rs.555-970, if the benefit of 5% of the Basic Pay as Personal Pay is not allowed to them, we are of the view that the same would have amounted to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It cannot be presumed that all the categories of staff in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.475-775; all categories of staff in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.610-1075; all categories of staff in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.705- 1230 and all the categories of staff in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.905-1545, on moving over to their respective revised scales of pay, will be granted 5% of the Basic Pay computed as on 1.8.1992 and those who are in the intermediary scale of pay of Rs.555-970, i.e. above pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.475-775 and below the pre- revised scale of pay of Rs.610-1075, if moved to the higher scale of pay, would not be entitled to get such 5% of Basic Pay computed as on 1.8.1992. If the Government decides that they are not entitled to get that 5% Basic Pay, for they are above the pre-revised scale of Rs.475-775 and below the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.610-1075, that would have amounted to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. In the aforesaid background, and for the reasons mentioned by the learned single Judge, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. There being no merits, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. cs To 1. The Chief Engineer, Department of Agriculture Engineering, 328, Annasalai, Nandanam, Chennai-35. 2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Agriculture Engineering, Tractor Workshop, Tirunelveli-7. + 1 CC to the Government Pleader SR NO.63 Writ Appeal No.1261 of 2008 KSK {CO} TP/19.1.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/