Madras High Court
T. Selvam And 44 Others vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 13 March, 2019
Author: K.K. Sasidharan
Bench: K.K. Sasidharan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.03.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K. SASIDHARAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU
Writ Appeal No. 2357 of 2011
1. T. Selvam and 44 others. ..Appellants
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep.by its Secretary to Government,
Industries Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Sugar,
No.690, Anna Salai,
Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.
3. The Special Officer,
The Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills
Ltd.,
Mohanur 637 015.
4. The Special Officer,
Dharmapuri District Co-operative
Sugar Mills Ltd.,
Palacode, Dharmapuri District.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
5. The Administrator,
Subramniyasiva Co-operative Sugar
Mills Ltd., Gopalapuram,
Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri District.
6. The Special Officer,
The Amaravathi Co-operative Sugar
Mills Ltd., Krishnapuram,
Udumalaipettai.
7. The Special Officer,
The National Co-operative Sugar
Mills Ltd.,
Mettupatti Post,
Alanganallur Via,
Madurai District.
8. The Administrator,
Kallakurichi II Co-operative Sugar
Mills Ltd.,
Kachirapalayam, Kallakurichi Taluk,
Villupuram District.
9. The Chief Executive,
Arignar Anna Sugar Mills,
Kurungulam,
Thanjavur District.
10. The Special Officer,
Tiruppattur Co-operative Sugar
Mills Ltd., Kethandapatti,
Vellore District.
11. The Chief Executive,
Perambalur Sugar Mills Ltd.,
Eraiyur Post, Perambalur District.
12. The Administrator,
Chengrayan Co-operative Sugar
Mills Ltd.,Periyasevalai,
Villupuram District.
http://www.judis.nic.in
3
13. The Administrator,
M.R.K. Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd.,
Sethiyathoppu, Cuddalore District.
14. The Special Officer,
The Vellore Co-operative Sugar
Mills Ltd., Ammundi,
Vellore Sugar Mills Post,
Vellore District.
15. The Administrator,
The Cheyyar Co-operative Sugar
Mills Ltd.,
Anakkavoor, Thenthandalam,
Cheyyar Taluk,
Thiruvannamalai District.
16. P. Sivasamy
17. C. Sundararaju
18. A. Ravi
19. R. Rajamani
20. S. Vivekanandan
21. R. Sengodan
22. P. Annakodi
23. S. Nagendran
24. R. Balasubramaniam
25. S. Venkatachalapathy
26. M. Elango
27. V. Balakrishnan
28. S. Saravanan
29. A. Thangavel
30. K. Ramasamy
31. G. Vengadesan
32. K. Eswaramurthy
33. B. Karunakaran
34. M. David
35. S. Gopalakrishnan
36. V. Venkatesh
37. S. Sivanesan
38. S. Velmurugan
39. K. Manikandan
40. T.K. Mohan
http://www.judis.nic.in
4
41. P. Velayutham
42. S. Rajan
43. L. Ravi
44. K. Annadurai
45. C. Sekar
46. C. Murugan
47. A. Velusamy
48. K. Sivakumar
49. C. Mahadevan
50. G. Rajendran
51. M. Ponnusamy
(Respondents 16 to 51 are given up as
no relief is sought for against them) ..Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal as against the order dated 24.08.2011 in W.P.
No. 23022 of 2009.
For Appellants :: Ms. Selvi George
For Respondents :: Mr.L.P. Shanmugasundaram
Special Government Pleader
for R1 & R2
Mr.R. Balaramesh,
Special Government Pleader
for R3 to R15
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.K. SASIDHARAN,J.) The writ petition filed by the petitioners for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to amend the relevant special bye-laws relating to the service conditions of employees of Co-operative Sugar Mills and bring the cadre of Cane Assistants on par with the cadre of Supervisors for promotional purpose and consequently to direct respondents 1 & 2 to http://www.judis.nic.in 5 include the cadre of Cane Assistants in the common cadre system for revising the payscale of the Cane Assistants was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 24.08.2011 in W.P. No. 23022 of 2009. Feeling aggrieved, the unsuccessful writ petitioners have come up with this intra-court appeal.
2. The appellants filed the writ petition primarily on the ground that certain other posts were included in the common cadre system but however, the cadre of Cane Assistants, which is in Clerical Grade III was not included in the common cadre. In short, it was the contention of the appellants that the post of Cane Assistants should also be included in the common cadre system.
3. The learned Single Judge considered the matter in extenso and negatived the contention taken by the appellants.
4. The issue raised by the appellants is squarely covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 02.12.2010 in W.A. Nos. 450 to 457 of 2010 etc. Batch ( T.A. Sugumaran V. The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Industries Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009 and others). The http://www.judis.nic.in 6 Division Bench in the judgment dated 02.12.2010 made it very clear that there is no question of directing the Commissioner of Sugar to include a particular post in the common cadre system as it is essentially an executive function. We are informed that the judgment dated 02.12.2010 was confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court.
5. The very same view was taken by this Bench recently in the judgment dated 13.02.2019 in W.A. No. 1289 of 2013 (C. Sundara Vadivel V. The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Industries Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009 and others).
6. The extent of judicial review in matters relating to determination of conditions of service came up for consideration before the Honourable Supreme Court in P.U. Joshi and others V. Accountant General and others reported in (2003) (2) SCC 632. The legal position was indicated by the Honourable Supreme Court in paragraph No.10 of the order, which reads as follows:
"10. ...Questions relating to the constitution, patternn, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service inluding avenues of promotions and http://www.judis.nic.in 7 criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of Policy and within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the Statutory Tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenuese of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/substruction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amlagamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a Government Servant has no http://www.judis.nic.in 8 right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service."
7. The learned Single Judge considered the issue with reference to the service conditions and the common cadre evolved by the Government pursuant to the recommendations of the Commissioner of Sugar. We are of the view that the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition.
8. In the upshot, we dismiss the intra-court appeal without any liability to costs.
(K.K.SASIDHARAN,J.) (P.D.AUDIKESAVALU,J.) nv 13 March, 2019 th To
1. The Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Sugar, No.690, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.
3. The Special Officer, http://www.judis.nic.in 9 The Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Mohanur 637 015.
4. The Special Officer, Dharmapuri District Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Palacode, Dharmapuri District.
5. The Administrator, Subramniyasiva Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Gopalapuram, Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri District.
6. The Special Officer, The Amaravathi Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Krishnapuram, Udumalaipettai.
7. The Special Officer, The National Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Mettupatti Post, Alanganallur Via, Madurai District.
8. The Administrator, Kallakurichi II Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Kachirapalayam, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District.
9. The Chief Executive, Arignar Anna Sugar Mills, Kurungulam, Thanjavur District.
K.K. SASIDHARAN,J.
http://www.judis.nic.in 10 AND P.D. AUDIKESAVALU,J.
nv
10. The Special Officer, Tiruppattur Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Kethandapatti, Vellore District.
11. The Chief Executive, Perambalur Sugar Mills Ltd., Eraiyur Post, Perambalur District.
12. The Administrator, Chengrayan Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd.,Periyasevalai, Villupuram District.
W.A.No. 2357 of 2011
13. The Administrator, M.R.K. Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Sethiyathoppu, Cuddalore District.
14. The Special Officer, The Vellore Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Ammundi, Vellore Sugar Mills Post, Vellore District.
15. The Administrator, The Cheyyar Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., 13.03.2019 Anakkavoor, Thenthandalam, Cheyyar Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District.
13.03.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in 11 http://www.judis.nic.in