Madras High Court
M. Umar Farooq Hussain, Working ... vs The Managing Director, Chennai ... on 19 June, 2003
ORDER K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.
1. In W.P. No. 45840 of 2002 filed by the President of the Chennai Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board Revenue Collectors Association, the petitioners seek for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order of second respondent dated 29.6.2002, and to quash the same.
2. In W.P. No. 3626 of 2003 filed by the four individual petitioners also, they pray for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings dated 2.9.2002 and the consequential order of the General Manager, Chintadripet, C.M.W.S.S.B., dated 24.12.2002 and to quash the same.
3. The petitioner Association contends that 70 persons were appointed as Demand Servers from the year 1984 and that the work of the Demand Servers are to serve the demand notices to the consumers and to collect the revenue and remit the same with the respondent Board. In 1986, they were redesignated as Revenue Collectors. In the same way Meter Readers who were also doing the same work, were redesignated as Revenue Collectors. From 1986 onwards, only Revenue Collectors were appointed. The Revenue Collectors were given Selection Grade after completion of 10 years of service in terms of the Regulations. The Revenue Collectors were fixed with pay scales of Rs. 610/- as basic pay with all other admissible allowances. The petitioner further contends that all the Revenue Collectors inclusive of the redesignated Readers and Demand Servers were placed on the same level. Promotion would depend only on seniority in their service. By order dated 2.12.1997, the second respondent cancelled the conferment of selection grade given to the Revenue Collectors after they had completed 10 years of service. Such cancellation being illegal, the petitioners filed W.P. No. 2346 of 1998. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court without going into the rival contentions as the impugned order was liable to be set aside for violation of principles of natural justice. The Board was directed to give notice to 68 Revenue Inspectors who were affected by the said order of cancellation, calling for their explanation and the respondents were directed to consider the same and pass orders. Subsequently, a notice was issued and after considering the representation, the respondents passed an order dated 29.6.2000 cancelling the conferment of Selection Grade in favour of 68 persons. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had approached this Court.
4. In the counter filed by the respondent/Board, it is contended that Readers were appointed in the Board during 1982 by transfer from other services and also through Employment Exchanges. They have to take readings, issue bills, and were in charge of collection of water charges. They were governed by scales of pay at Rs. 325-555 which was revised into Rs. 555-970. Likewise Demand Servers were appointed by the Board to serve Demand Notices and to collect water and sewerage taxes. They were also governed by the same scale of pay. In August, 1986, the Board took a decision to merge the post of Meter Readers/Demand Servers into one category and to redesignate them as Revenue Collectors with more responsibilities with a higher scale of pay of Rs. 610-1075. Prior to redesignation the Readers collected meter charges and Demand Servers collected only water and sewerage taxes. On redesignation, the Revenue Collectors have to collect both meter charges and water and sewerage taxes in their respective division. Therefore, the functions of the Readers/Demand Servers were entirely different from the functions of the Revenue Collector. Therefore, the post of Revenue Collector was a higher post with increased duties and responsibilities and also given a higher scale of pay. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the posts were equal, cannot be sustained.
5. It is further stated that due opportunity was furnished to the petitioner as against the proposal to cancel the conferment of Special Grade which was done due to mistake. Therefore, the impugned orders were perfectly justified.
6. I have heard both learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents.
7. The entire issue revolves around interpretation of the impugned proceedings dated 31.7.1986, ordering the merger of Meter Readers/Demand Servers into one category and the change of their designation as the Revenue Collectors. While the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that for the grant of Special Grade for the post of Revenue Collector, the past service of the petitioners either as Meter Readers or Demand Servers will also be taken into account and that is how the department itself, was dealing with the issue earlier. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that the post of Revenue Collector was a higher post, cannot be sustained. According to learned counsel for the respondent/Board, the grant of Selection Grade was governed by Regulation 2(q) of Pay Regulations of the respondent/Board. In terms of the said provision, Selection Grade can be granted only when the employee completes 10 years of satisfactory service in the ordinary grade. The designation of the petitioners being Revenue Collectors, the period of 10 years for the conferment of Selection Grade can be calculated only on a completion of 10 years in the said post. According to learned counsel for the Board, what was contemplated under the Board's proceedings dated 31.7.1986 is that the post of Bill Collectors/Demand Servers were upgraded as Revenue Collectors and the Pay scales of the Revenue Collectors are also higher. Merely because the expression "merger" is used, it cannot result in equation of the said posts. It is also contended that the duties and responsibilities of the Revenue Collectors are heavy in comparison with the Meter Readers and Demand Servers and hence for the grant of Selection Grade, the services rendered as Demand Servers or Meter Readers cannot be taken into account.
8. I have considered the submissions of both sides and I am inclined to reject the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent/Board for the following reasons:-
(I) There is no dispute over the fact that in terms of the Regulation 2(q) of the Pay Regulations of the Board, the employee shall be allowed to move under the Selection Grade on completion of 10 years of satisfactory service in the ordinary grade. The contention that the merger contemplated under the Board's proceedings dated 31.7.1986 was only an order of upgradation or promotion to the employees of the Board working as Meter Readers and Demand Servers to the post of Revenue Collectors, is not sustainable. It will be useful to extract the said proceedings in entirety:-
" Proc. No. P&A/STF/R&A6/43514/86, DATED 31.7.86.
Sub: Personnel - MMWSSB - Merger of Meter Reader and Demand Server into one category and change of designation as Revenue Collector - Duties and responsibilities - Allocation of Divisions in Aras - Orders - Issued.
Ref: Board's Resolution No. 144/86, dt.19.5.86.
-----
On the representation of the Demand Servers of the Board to revise the pay structure in parity with that the Tax Collectors of Corporation of Madras, the Board formed a sub-committee to examine this and to recommend to the Board. Accordingly the sub-committee took the various factors into consideration an d recommended to revise the Pay structure with that of the Tax Collectors of Corporation of Madras. The Committee has however recommended to give all works connected with billing, Collection Demand serving etc., to the Demand Servers. These recommendations of the sub-committee were placed before the Board and the Board resolved to merge the post of Demand Servers and Meter Readers redesignating them as Revenue Collectors and to attach them to the Depot Officers. The Board also resolved to revise the pay scales of the Revenue Collectors from 555-970 to Rs. 610-1075 without giving any travelling allowance. The Board also created 10 additional post of Revenue Collectors to post one Revenue Collector for each Corporation of Madras Division.
Based on the above resolution of the Board the following orders are issued:
1. The post of Demand Servers and Meter Readers are merged and designated as Revenue Collector and attached to the respective Area Offices with Divisions as furnished in the Annexure-I.
2. The Revenue Collectors are fitted in the revised scale of pay of Rs. 610-20-730-25-955-30-1075.
3. The Revenue Collectors will not be eligible for travelling allowance.
4. The Revenue Collectors are in charge of each Muncipal Division for serving of demands for both water and sewerage tax and bills for water supply charges and collection thereof and they should attend to any other allied duties.
5. The Revenue Collectors should work under the administrative control of the Area Engineers and they are attached to the respective Depot Officers. The Revenue Collectors should also report to S.D.C./F.A./C.O.F. Whenever called for.
6. The duties and responsibilities assigned to the Revenue Collectors are furnished in Annexure-II.
7. The Area Engineers may take action for additional charges or alternative arrangement for the vacant posts to be filled up in their areas.
8. The Revenue Collectors Tvl. P.Ramanan and K.Udayasankar will work in Finance Department to attend the Court work.
9. The following four existing Senior Meter Readers should report for duty to Controller of Finance for further instructions to them.
1. Thiru G. Sivakumar
2. " J. Kuppan
3. " N. Kumudhanathan
4. " S. R.Krishnamoorthy
10. Separate orders will be issued to Thiru N.S.Shanmha Sundaram, under suspension on completion of disciplinary action.
11. The above orders will come into force with effect from 1st August '86 and they should report to respective Area Engineer consequent on their relief.
12. The handing over and taking over charges should be made as per circular No. P&A/SFT/RA3/88049/85, dated 23.8.85.
Sd/- 31.7.86 P&A MANAGER/I.C./F.D. The above extract clearly brings out the following facts:-
(i) What was resolved by the Board was only a merger and not providing any promotion to the Demand Servers and Meter Readers or upgradation of the said posts as Revenue Collectors.
(ii) The expression "change of designation" as occurring in the preamble as well as in the operative portion of the said proceedings, should remove all doubts if any, as regards the effect of the said proceedings namely, that it was only a case of merger of equal cadre posts.
(iii) There is no substance in the contention that the Pay Scale of Revenue Collectors were fixed higher and therefore, the post of Revenue Collector should be treated as a promotion post. A perusal of the proceedings shows that it is only by virtue of the said proceedings the Pay Scale of Revenue Collectors was revised from Rs. 555-970 to Rs. 610-1075. Therefore, the higher pay scales as payable to the post of Revenue Collectors was made effective simultaneously along with the merger. It is also apparent from the proceedings themselves, that the so-called revision in pay scales was only in lieu of the Travelling Allowance and that on redesignation, they were not eligible for Travelling Allowance. Therefore, the only fact that the salary was increased cannot mean that they had been promoted to a higher post.
(iv) Even assuming that the pay scales came to be revised and refixed in the post of Revenue Collectors, that cannot result in ignoring the real effect of the proceedings. What was contemplated thereunder was only merger and redesignation of the post. Therefore, whatever benefits which accrue as a result of such merger or redesignation cannot be interpreted either as promotion or appointing them in a new post or cadre.
(v) A perusal of the proceedings dated 31.7.1986 and the Annexure-II thereon discloses that they are required to perform the very same duties as Demand Servers or Meter Readers. While Meter reading was done by Meter Readers, and service of Demand notices were complied with by Demand Servers, collection of taxes were carried out by both. Now all the duties which were being performed by both of them are brought under one category of Revenue Collectors. In fact, even in the counter filed by the respondents also, it is clearly stated that the Meter Readers were given the responsibilities to take Meter readings, issuing bills and collection of water charges. Likewise with reference to Demand Servers also, it is stated that they had to serve notices of water and sewerage tax, demand and to collect water and sewerage tax. Presently, the Revenue Collectors discharge the very same pattern of duties. Therefore, the contention that they are discharging any higher or additional responsibilities, cannot be sustained. With the result, I am inclined to hold that an order of merger or redesignation of two or more posts cannot result in snapping or ignoring the services already rendered by the erstwhile Demand Servers/Meter Readers namely, the petitioners herein in their substantive posts prior to redesignation. They cannot be deprived of their rights to move into the Selection Grade in terms of Regulation 2(q) of the Pay Regulations of the Board.
9. Hence,the impugned orders cancelling the conferment of Selection Grade and the consequential orders of refixation of salary and orders of recovery if any, shall be set aside and the writ petitions are allowed as prayed for. All the miscellaneous petitions are closed as unnecessary.