Madras High Court
M.Madhavan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 February, 2019
Author: D.Krishnakumar
Bench: D.Krishnakumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.02.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.33959 of 2014
1 M.Madhavan
2 R.Velayudham
3 K.Selvakumar
4 A.Krishnamoorthy
5 S.Mangaiyarkarasi
6 J.A.Bathusha
7 V.Jayakumar
8 M.Sepperuman
9 P.Arunkumar
10 B.Anbalagan
11 K.G.Premalatha
12 T.Kotteeswaran
13 B.Abinaya
14 D.Vijayalakshmi
15 D.S.Balaji
16 V.Elango
17 M.R.Jagadeeswaran
18 T.Anandan
19 S.Kalpana
20 V.K.Saravanan
21 K.Vedanayagam
22 V.Pagutharivu
23 V.Ravi
24 S.Sekar
25 R.Sasikala
26 D.Patric Kingsly
27 A.C.Selvaraj
28 S.Manivannan
29 P.Komathi
30 M.Gowri
31 G.Meenakshi
32 P.Kandasamy
http://www.judis.nic.in33 P.S.Ramakrishnan
2
34 B.Sivagurunathan
35 M.R.Muthalagu
36 K.P.Bharathi
37 S.P.Sivakumar
38 G.Swapna
39 S.Amuthavalli
40 Geetha Mahadevan
41 B.Jayaram
42 R.Tamilarasi
43 M.Subash Chandra Bose
44 M.Selvakumar
45 J.Selvarani
46 K.Sankaran
47 A.Devendran
48 C.Inbaraj
49 M.Govindaraj
50 M.Settu
51 R.Venkatesan
52 R.Ravichandran
53 S.Leelavathi
54 C.Meena
55 A.Nawabjan
56 G.Chitra
57 A.Vasu
58 P.V.Gopinathan
59 S.K.Babukumar
60 S.Chandrasoorian
61 P.Kanagaraj
62 S.Muthupandiammal
63 S.Punithavathi
64 P.Meenambigai
65 I.Shabeena
66 M.Selvi
67 K.Anithabanu
68 S.Latha
69 A.Premila
70 A.Janaki
71 V.Rameshkumar
72 R.Suresh
73 M.Premalatha
74 K.Ravi
75 S.Tharmaraj
76 R.Balasubramanian
http://www.judis.nic.in77 L.Vijayakamatchi
3
78 D.Rose Victoria
79 M.Mohamed Ali Jinnah
80 K.Palani
81 A.Latha
82 R.Shanmugavadivu
83 M.Allah Baksh
84 A.Sekar
85 E.Raman
86 S.Krishnamoorthi
87 S.Selvakumar
88 S.Suguna
89 M.Anbarasan
90 V.Vasanthi
91 A.Ayisha Gani
92 V.Ramamoorthy
93 S.Vasumathi
94 V.Sriranjithkumar
95 S.Palanisamy
96 M.Shiyamsundar
97 S.Prema
98 R.Selvam
99 K.Jayakumar
100 N.Manibharathi
101 R.Rajagowri
102 M.Saravanan
103 S.Shanthi
104 N.Venkatesan ... Petitioners
Vs
1 The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
School Eduction Department,
Secretariat Chennai-9.
2 The Director of School,
Education College Road Chennai-6. ... Respondents
Prayer:- The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
pertaining to the order passed by the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.6 School
http://www.judis.nic.in
4
Education Department dated 04.01.2000, insofar as the fixation of scale of
pay to the Agriculture Instructors under Rule 8 of Higher Secondary
Vocational Education Adhoc Rules at Rs.1400/- prior to 01.01.1996 and at
Rs.5500/- after 01.01.1996 and the Government Letter No.14855/C.C.
1(3)/2014, School Education Department, dated 10.10.2014 and quash the
same and direct the respondents to fix the scale of pay of the petitioners at
Rs.6500/- from the date of appointment and at pay Band Rs.15600/- Grade
Pay Rs.5400/- with effect from 01.01.2006 and confer all the consequential
benefits.
For Petitioners : P.Ganesan
For Respondents : Mr.K.Karthikeyan
Additional Government Pleader
******
ORDER
The petitioners have filed this Writ Petition for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.6 School Education Department dated 04.01.2000, insofar as the fixation of scale of pay to the Agriculture Instructors under Rule 8 of Higher Secondary Vocational Education Adhoc Rules at Rs.1400/- prior to 01.01.1996 and at Rs.5500/- after 01.01.1996 and the Government Letter No.14855/C.C.1(3)/2014, School Education Department, dated 10.10.2014 and quash the same and direct the respondents to fix the scale of pay of the petitioners at Rs.6500/- from the date of appointment and at pay Band Rs.15600/- Grade Pay Rs.5400/- with http://www.judis.nic.ineffect from 01.01.2006 and confer all the consequential benefits. 5
2. The petitioners would submit that they are working as Agricultural Instructors in various Government Higher Secondary Schools in Tamil Nadu. The petitioners would further submit that the scale of pay for the Professional Degree holders are equal to the academic degree holders. Hence, as against the fixation of equal pay in the V Pay Commission, the Association of Agricultural Graduates made a representation and One Man Commission was constituted and on seeing the professional degree possessed by the persons and taking classes in Higher Secondary Schools, the One Man Commission recommended the scale of pay at Rs.2,000/- for the Vocational Instructors working in the Higher Secondary Schools in spite of the fact that the P.G. Assistants working in the Higher Secondary Schools were given the scale of pay of Rs.1,840/-. The recommendation of the One Man Commission was accepted by the Government and the Government issued Order in G.O.Ms.No.840, Finance Department, dated 31.07.1990. Since the pay scale of Rs.2,000/- was not fixed for the Agricultural Instructor with B.Sc. (Agriculture) Degree, they made a representation requesting to fix the scale pay at Rs.2,000/- as per the recommendation of the One Man Commission. Since their representation was not considered, they approached this Court by filing Writ Petitions and the same were allowed with a direction to the respondents to fix the scale of Rs.2,000/- to the Agriculture Instructors. Thereafter, the corresponding revision of pay under the Tamil Nadu Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 1996 was fixed at http://www.judis.nic.in 6 Rs.6,500/-. Similarly, subsequent Pay Commission revised the scale of pay at P.B. Rs.15,600/- with Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/- from 01.01.2006. Hence, they made a representation to the respondents requesting to fix the scale of pay at Rs.6,500/- under the Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 1996 and at Pay Brand of Rs.15,600/- with Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/- as per the VI Pay Commission recommendation, because they were not given the fixation, whereas, they have been given the fixation at Rs.5,500/- and correspondingly, the Pay Brand of Rs.9,300/- with Grade Pay Rs.4,600/- respectively. Since the representation of the petitioners was not considered, they filed Writ Petitions before this Court and this Court gave a direction to consider the representation as per the judgment of this Court as well as the order passed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.840, Finance Department, dated 31.07.1990. The Government rejected the representation of the petitioners under the impugned order dated 10.10.2014. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court.
3. The issue involved in this Writ Petition is no longer res integra. Initially, similarly placed persons have approached Madurai Bench of this Court by filing a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No.5766 of 2008 and this Court, by an order dated 05.03.2012, allowed the Writ Petition. Against which, the Government preferred an appeal in W.A. (MD) No.1344 of 2013 and this Court, by an order dated 14.08.2014 dismissed the Writ Appeal. Thereafter, http://www.judis.nic.in 7 the State preferred SLP.C.No.235 of 2015 before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court, dismissed the Special Leave Petition on 07.09.2015. Further, by referring the above said fact, this Court, by an order dated 14.09.2017 in W.P.Nos.9675 & 9676 of 2015, allowed the similar Writ Petitions. The relevant paragraphs would run thus:-
"5.The similar issue was already adjudicated by this Court in the case of G.Vasimalai -Vs- State of Tamil Nadu in W.P (M.D) No.5766 of 2008. The learned Single Judge passed an order on 05.03.2012 is extracted here under:
'The issue involved in this case is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to get the salary in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.840 Finance (Pay) Commission dated 31.7.1990 when he is holding B.Sc (Agri) degree. The learned Judge has categorically found in the above referred order that when the petitioner is also doing the same work as that of the other Vocational Instructors, there is no justification to deny the scale of pay applicable to Vocational Instructors. The learned Judge has also categorically found that there cannot be two sets of Vocational Instructors drawing the different scale of pay and doing the similar work. The learned Judge has granted relief in the said Writ Petition to fix the scale of pay as Rs.2000-3500. Accordingly, in this case also the petitioner is entitled to relief of re-fixation of the scale of pay in terms of G.O.Ms.No.840 (Finance (Pay Commission) dated 31.7.1990. Therefore, the reasons assigned in the impugned order are not justifiable and the same is unsustainable in view of the findings given by this Court in other Writ Petition in W.P.No.32121 of 2006 dated 5.1.2010. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed and the respondent is directed to re-fix the scale of pay of the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.840 (Finance (Pay http://www.judis.nic.in Commission) dated 31.7.1990 from the date of 8 regularization namely, 16.10.1992 and pass orders and to pay monetary benefits within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.'
6.The state preferred W.A.(MD) No.1344 of 2013 against the order cited supra and the Hon'ble Division Bench considered the issues elaborately and delivered a Judgment on 14.08.2014 and the relevant paragraphs are extracted here under:-
'21.Keeping in mind the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions of the Honourable Apex Court as well as this Court, we have no hesitation to conclude that the impugned order herein passed by the learned Judge (K.Ravichandra Baabu,J.), in W.P.(MD) No.5766 of 2008, dated 05.03.2012, by following the order passed by the learned Judge (D.Hariparanthaman,J.) in W.P.No.32121 of 2006, dated 05.01.2010, is tenable.
22.Further, on a deep scrutiny of the materials available on record, we find that there is no need to refer the matter to a Larger Bench, since there are no conflict verdicts on the issue on hand and it cannot be said that the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court (EDRJ & RPSJ) is a non-speaking order, for the reason that the Division Bench of this Court had considered the issue and upheld the order passed by the learned Judge (D.Hariparanthaman,J.) in W.P.No.32121 of 2006.
It is also not correct to state that the Honourable Supreme Court simply dismissed the Special Leave Petition without dealing with the correctness of the matters.
23.In such circumstances, we find that the order passed by the learned Judge (K.Ravichandra Baabu, J) in W.P.(MD) No.5766 of 2008, dated 05.03.2012, by following the earlier order passed by the learned Judge http://www.judis.nic.in (D.Hariparanthaman, J), in W.P.No.32121 of 2006, 9 dated 05.01.2010, which was ultimately confirmed by the Honourable Apex Court, is in accordance with law and no interference at the hands of this Court is warranted. Accordingly, we find no cause or reason to differ with the same.
24.In fine, the writ appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions is dismissed. No costs.'
7.The State preferred SLP C No.237 of 2015 before the Apex Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dismissed the Special Leave Petition on 07.09.2015. Thus, the matter reached finality and the learned counsel for the writ petitioner further brought to the notice of this Court that the order passed in the above cases were implemented by the respondent State by issuing G.O.(3D) No.91, School Education Department dated 26.05.2016. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petitioners in these writ petitions are also entitled to get the same benefit of equal time scale of pay in accordance with the G.O.Ms.No.840, Finance (Pay Commission) dated 31.07.1990.
8.Accordingly, the orders impugned in these writ petitions stand quashed and the writ petitions stand allowed in terms of the orders passed by this Court in W.P. (MD) No.5766 of 2008 dated 05.03.2012 and the W.A. (MD) No.1344 of 2013 dated 14.08.2014. The respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders as early as possible. However, there is no order as to costs. "
http://www.judis.nic.in 10
4. In the light of the above, the orders impugned in the writ petition stands quashed and the writ petition is allowed. It is open to the petitioners to make fresh representation to the second respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such receipt, the second respondent is directed to consider the representation in terms of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.5766 of 2008 dated 05.03.2012 and W.A. (MD) No.1344 of 2013 dated 14.08.2014 and pass appropriate orders, as early as possible. However, there is no order as to costs.
26.02.2019 Index:Yes/No Speaking / Non-Speaking order rns http://www.judis.nic.in 11 To
1.The Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu, School Eduction Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2 The Director of School, Education College Road Chennai-6.
http://www.judis.nic.in 12 D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
rns W.P.No.33959 of 2014 26.02.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in