Madras High Court
A.Gunasekaran vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 14 June, 2013
Author: T.Raja
Bench: T.Raja
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.06.2013
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
W.P.No.4951 of 2008
1. A.Gunasekaran
2. N.B.John
3. M.Palanichamy
4. K.Kumar
5. B.Kannabiran
6. S.Ramasubbu .. Petitioners
-vs-
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
rep.by the Secretary to the Government
Home (Police) Department
Fort St.George
Chennai 600 009
2. The Director General of Police
Chennai 600 004
3. The Automobile Engineer
I/c Works Manager
Police Transport Workshop cum Training School
Avadi
Chennai 600 054 .. Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the third respondent in C.No.B/3162/02 W.O.No.87/07 dated 9.11.2007 and quash the same.
For Petitioners :: Mr.P.Rajendran
For Respondents :: Mr.R.Vijayakumar
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition was filed by Mr.A.Gunasekaran and five others seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the third respondent, the Automobile Engineer, In-charge Works Manager, Police Transport Workshop cum Training School, Avadi, Chennai in C.No.B/3162/02, W.O.No.87/07 dated 9.11.2007 and to quash the same.
2. It has been the case of the petitioners that they were earlier working in the post of Fitter Special and subsequently got promoted to the post of Foreman and all of them had retired from service during the pendency of the writ petition. When the petitioners were working in the post of Fitter Special, the said post carried the scale of pay of Rs.1200-2040 and the same was revised to Rs.4000-6000 with effect from 1.1.96 by G.O.Ms.No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.4.98. In the meanwhile, all the petitioners were granted personal pay of 5% of the basic pay by G.O.Ms.No.664, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 24.8.92, which was applicable to the employees drawing the following scales of pay with effect from 1.8.92:-
(i) All categories of staff in the pre-revised scales of pay at Rs.475-775 moving over to the revised scale of pay of Rs.775-1030.
(ii) All categories of staff in the pre-revised scales of pay at 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 scales of pay at Rs.705-1230 moving over to the revised scale of pay of Rs.1200-2040.
(iv) All categories of staff in the pre-revised scales of pay at Rs.905-1545 moving over to the revised scale of pay of Rs.1600-2660.
When the petitioners were drawing the revised scale of pay of Rs.1200-2040, they were also granted personal pay of 5% of the basic pay, as there was no dispute in regard to the scale of pay drawn by them. It has been further pleaded by the petitioners that in the year 1998, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.497, Finance Department dated 15.9.98 granting personal pay to all categories of employees who had been granted with 5% personal pay prior to 1.1.96 with effect from 1.9.98. As the petitioners were also receiving personal pay prior to 1.1.96, they continued to receive the same. When the Finance Department issued G.O.Ms.No.456 dated 31.8.98 revising the scale of pay of Fitter Special to Rs.4300-6000 with effect from 1.9.98, unfortunately, since the scale of pay of Rs.1320-2040 did not find a place amongst the four scales of pay mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.664 dated 24.8.92, the Secretary to Government, Home (Police) Department, the first respondent herein directed the Director General of Police, the second respondent herein to stop the payment of personal pay to the petitioners with a further direction to recover the personal pay paid to them from 1.9.98, as a result, the second respondent also directed the Automobile Engineer, In-charge Works Manager, Police Transport Workshop cum Training School, Avadi, the third respondent herein to stop the payment of personal pay and to recover the personal pay paid to the petitioners with effect from 1.9.98. Aggrieved by the same, since the said order was issued without there being any prior notice, the petitioners have come to this Court. Finally, it was stated that even though no notice was issued before passing the impugned order of stoppage and recovery, the issue raised in the present writ petition is no longer res integra, in view of the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.20156 and 13143 of 2000 dated 10.3.2006 (V.Rathinakiri and others v. Government of Tamil Nadu and others), wherein it has been specifically held that the denial of 5% personal pay of the basic pay is arbitrary and unreasonable for the reason that the stand of the first respondent is illogical besides being arbitrary.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.
4. At the outset, it must be pointed out that the impugned order of stoppage of 5% personal pay and the consequential order of recovery cannot be made, inasmuch as when the respondents had covered the employees receiving the revised scales of pay of Rs.775-1030, Rs.950-1500, Rs.975-1660, Rs.1200-2040 and Rs.1600-2660 and that the petitioners also got the further revision of scale of pay at Rs.1320-2040, the said benefit cannot be denied to the petitioners on the ground that only four categories of employees were included in G.O.Ms.No.664 dated 24.8.92. Moreover, it is relevant to point out that the categorisation in the Government Order is based on the scale of pay and not on the basis of the post and this vital factor has to be considered in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, the order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.20156 and 13143 of 2000 dated 10.3.2006 will definitely apply to the case of the petitioners. Therefore, on this basis, the objection raised by the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents that there is a specific clarification made by the Government that the personal pay shall not apply to the petitioners in the revised scale of pay of Rs.4300-6000 cannot be accepted, for yet another reason that the petitioners were admittedly drawing the pay in the revised scale of pay of Rs.1200-2040 and they were allowed personal pay of 5% of the basic pay. Besides, no notice was served prior to the impugned order. For all these reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. Needless to mention that the respondents shall work out the consequential benefits in view of the order passed by this Court and pay the same to the petitioners within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 of 2008 and 1 of 2009 are closed. No costs.
ss To
1. The Secretary to the Government Home (Police) Department Fort St.George Chennai 600 009
2. The Director General of Police Chennai 600 004
3. The Automobile Engineer I/c Works Manager Police Transport Workshop cum Training School Avadi Chennai 600 054