Madras High Court
The Director Of Sericulture Department vs K.Kumar
Author: V.Ramasubramanian
Bench: V.Ramasubramanian, T.Mathivanan
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Reserved on: 30.6.2015 & Pronounced on: 08.7.2015
Coram:
The Honourable Mr.Justice V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
and
The Honourable Mr.Justice T.MATHIVANAN
W.A.Nos.1398, 1605, 1932, 2069, 2073, 2541 of 2013,
44, 45, 291, 1221 of 2013, 1284, 1285, 1505 of 2014,
1888 and 1889 of 2013
&
W.P.Nos.23550 of 2010, 26361, 30616, 31620, 34718, 34719 of 2012,
1420, 4200, 9007, 29336, 29337, 29353, 29381, 29429, 21889, 21890,
21891, 21892, 21893, 21894, 21895, 21896, 21897, 21898, 21899,
21900, 27977, 29669, 30047, 30081, 30150, 30318, 29171, 29175,
29333, 29352, 29514, 29525, 28919, 28920, 28921, 28922, 28923,
28924, 28925, 28926, 28927, 28928, 28929, 28930, 28931, 28932,
28933, 28934, 28935, 28936, 28937, 28938, 28939, 28940, 28941,
33862, 33869, 33922, 33928, 33931, 33269, 33270, 33280, 33385,
33477, 33858, 30350, 30359, 30669, 33263, 33264, 30319, 30333,
30334, 30335, 30336, of 2013, 32147, 32148, 32149, 32150, 32151,
32152, 32153, 4612, 4945, 5597, 5604, 7563, 7959, 22812, 1483,
4010, 4337, 4561, 4562, 4599, 77, 87, 355, 356, 1037, 1038 and
3999 of 2014
W.A.No.1398 of 2013
1. The Director of Sericulture Department
Salem.
2. The District Treasury Officer
Villupuram.
3. The District Treasury Officer
Dharmapuri.
4. The District Treasury Officer
Vellore.
5. The District Treasury Officer
Salem.
6. The District Treasury Officer
Coimbatore.
7. The District Treasury Officer
Kancheepuram. .. Appellants
Vs.
1. K.Kumar
2. C.Thavamani
3. K.Jagadesan
4. M.Appukan
5. P.Anthony Rajkumar
6. N.Nagendra Rao
7. H.Jayapal
8. D.Ramalingam
9. M.Govindaraj
10.K.Ponmudi
11.M.Ramakrishnan
12.K.Durai
13.K.Shanmugam
14.J.Balaji
15.S.Vengatesappa
16.N.Puvaneswar
17.M.Krishnan
18.C.Shanmugam .. Respondents
------
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of the learned Judge of this Court dated 09.6.2011 made in W.P.No.8698 of 2011.
-----
For Appellants : Mr.A.L.Somayaji, Advocate General
Assisted by Mrs.A.Srijayanthi, Spl.G.P.
For Respondents : Messers.L.Chandrakumar, M.Ravi
and Mr.Sunilkumar
-----
COMMON JUDGMENT
V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J The selection and special grade scales of pay admissible to persons working as drivers in various departments of the State of Tamil Nadu, local bodies and Boards under a Government Order G.O.Ms.No.162, Finance (Pay Cell), Department, dated 13.4.1998, has become the subject matter of controversy in this batch of writ appeals and writ petitions.
2. To understand the nature of the controversy, it is necessary to provide a brief historical background. It is as follows:-
(a) By G.O.Ms.No.432, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 22.6.1988, the Government of Tamil Nadu constituted the V Tamil Nadu Pay Commission, to examine the question of revision of the pay structure and retirement benefits of the employees of the State Government, Local Bodies, Teachers and other employees in Aided Educational Institutions in the State and to recommend changes.
(b) The V Tamil Nadu Pay Commission submitted its report to the Government on 16.5.1989. The Pay Commission recommended Central Government Scales of Pay for almost all categories of employees of the State Government wherever category equalisation was possible. In respect of posts for which category equalisation was not possible, the Commission recommended revised scales of pay.
(c) In effect, the V Pay Commission recommended 24 standard revised scales of pay in the place of the existing 17 standard scales of pay and 1 non-standard scale of pay with effect from 1.6.1988.
(d) Accepting the recommendations of the V Tamil Nadu Pay Commission, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.666, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 27.6.1989, making a set of Rules known as "The Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1989", in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution.
(e) The Schedule to the aforesaid Rules contained the various categories of posts, the existing scales of pay of those posts and the revised scales of pay as ordered by these Rules. Rule 3 of these Statutory Rules made it clear that all the holders of the posts indicated in the schedule, shall be paid revised scales of pay as indicated in the schedule.
(f) The first part of the schedule to the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1989 contained a list of about 30 posts which fell under "Common Categories". The post of driver/van driver was found at serial number 11 in the first part of the schedule. The existing pay of the said post of driver/van driver was indicated to be Rs.610-1075. The revised pay of the said post was indicated to Rs.950-1500.
(g) The aforesaid 1989 Rules were amended by the G.O.Ms.No.818 Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 9.8.1989. By the said amendment, the revised scale of pay of the post of driver/van driver was made as Rs.975-1660 instead of Rs.950-1500.
(h) After the issue of Revised Scales of Pay Rules, the Government took up the issue of grant of Selection Grade and Special Grade to persons who had respectively completed 10 years and 20 years of service. After examining the issue, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.304, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 28.3.1990. By the said order, the Government directed that the scheme of Selection Grade and Special Grade shall be allowed to all the employees eligible for movement to Selection Grade and Special Grade as indicated in Annexure-I to the Government Order, replacing the Appendix VII to G.O.Ms.No.666, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 27.6.1989.
(i) In Annexure I to G.O.Ms.No.304, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 28.3.1990, a table was given indicating the Selection Grade Scale of Pay and the Special Grade Scale of Pay corresponding to each of the ordinary grade scales of pay.
(j) In the said table given under Annexure-I to G.O.Ms.No.304, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 28.3.1990, the Selection Grade Scale of Pay was indicated as Rs.1200-2040 and the Special Grade Scale of Pay was indicated as Rs.1320-2040, for posts carrying ordinary grade scale of pay of Rs.975-1660. In other words, a person whose ordinary grade scale of pay became Rs.975-1660 after the implementation of the recommendations of the V Pay Commission, became entitled to the Selection Grade Scale of Pay of Rs.1200-2040 and to Special Grade Scale of Pay of Rs.1320-2040.
(k) In the meantime, the Central Government implemented the recommendations of the V Central Pay Commission for the employees of the Central Government. Therefore, the Government of Tamil Nadu constituted an official committee under G.O.Ms.No.414, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 31.7.1997 to examine the question of revision of scales of pay and allowances. The said committee submitted a report on 16.3.1998. After examining the recommendations of the committee, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 13.4.1998.
(l) In so far as the pay scales are concerned, the said Government Order G.O.Ms.No.162, dated 13.4.1998 declared that the broad banding of pay scales that is the merger of existing two pay scales and grant of a common revised pay scale adopted by the Central Government could not be followed in the State. The Government also decided that the revised pay scales will be on pay scale to pay scale basis, since the adoption of the same yardstick as done by the Central Government would alter the existing 25 standard pay scales.
(m) In so far as the Selection Grade and Special Grade Scales of Pay are concerned, the Government directed under G.O.Ms.No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 13.4.1998 that they will correspond to the revised scales based on the existing pay scales of these grades. In Schedule II to the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1998, the appropriate revised scales of pay for Selection Grade and Special Grade were also indicated.
(n) As a matter of fact, the Government issued under G.O.Ms.No. 162, dated 13.4.1998, a set of Statutory Rules in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. All these Rules are known as Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1998.
(o) In Schedule I to these Rules issued under G.O.Ms.No.162, a table was given, indicating the Revised Scale of Pay for every existing scale of pay. Interestingly, Schedule I to the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1998, did not go by the categories of posts or their nomenclature or their designation. The table under Schedule I to the 1998 Rules merely contained a list of 25 existing scales of pay and their corresponding revised scales of pay.
(p) In serial no. XX of Schedule I to the 1998 Rules, the revised scale of pay was indicated to be Rs.3200-85-4900 for a post carrying existing scale of pay of Rs.975-25-1150-30-1660.
(q) Schedule II to the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1998, contained a tabular statement giving the Selection Grade and Special Grade Scales of Pay for about 18 different ordinary grade scales of pay. In serial No.6 of the table under Schedule II, it was indicated that the Selection Grade Scale of Pay for a post carrying an ordinary grade scale of Rs.3200-85-4900, would be Rs.4000-100-6000 and that the Special Grade Scale of Pay for the same ordinary grade scale would be Rs.4300-100-6000.
(r) Therefore, it is clear from Schedule II to the 1998 Rules, that for an ordinary grade scale of Rs.3200-4900, the Selection Grade Scale would be Rs.4000-100-6000 and the Special Grade Scale of Pay would be Rs.4300-100-6000.
(s) Therefore, a cumulative reading of all the Government Orders such as G.O.Ms.No.666, Finance dated 27.6.1989, G.O.Ms.No.818 Finance, dated 9.8.1989, G.O.Ms.No.304, Finance dated 28.3.1990 and G.O.Ms.No. 162, Finance dated 13.4.1998 would show--
-that the ordinary grade scale of pay of drivers was Rs.610-1075, before the implementation of the recommendations of the V Pay Commission;
-that it was increased first to Rs.950-1500 and later to Rs.975-1660;
-that for such an ordinary grade scale of pay, the Selection Grade Scale was fixed at Rs.1200-2040 and the Special Grade Scale was fixed at Rs.1320-2040 in the year 1990;
-and that in the year 1998, the ordinary grade scale of pay was increased from Rs.975-1660 to Rs.3200-4900, the Selection Grade Scale of Pay was increased from Rs.1200-2040 to Rs.4000-6000 and the Special Grade Scale of Pay was increased from Rs.1320-2040 to Rs.4300-6000.
(t) However, it appears that in some subordinate offices of some departments, some drivers were granted a Special Grade Scale of Pay of Rs.5000-8000 instead of Rs.4300-6000. Therefore, when other drivers started demanding the same fixation, the Government issued a Letter bearing No.96900/PC/1998-2, dated 31.12.1998, directing the concerned Heads of Departments to look into the matter. In para 2 of the said letter, the Government indicated very clearly, what was the pre-revised and revised scales of pay of drivers in all the three grades, as follows:-
Pre-revised Revised scale of pay scale of pay ------------- -------------- Rs. Rs. Ordinary Grade 975-1660 3200-4900 Selection Grade 1200-2040 4000-6000 Special Grade 1320-2040 4300-6000
(u) Despite the above instructions, the Tamil Nadu Government Department Drivers' Association made a claim for the grant of Selection Grade and Special Grade scales of pay at Rs.5000/- and Rs.5500/- respectively, with effect from 1.1.1996. The said request was turned down by the Government, by a letter dated 25.4.2006.
(v) Challenging the said letter dated 25.4.2006, the association came up with a writ petition in W.P.No.34800 of 2006. The said writ petition appears to have been disposed of by a learned Judge of this Court, with liberty to individual drivers to make representations and directing the Government to consider those representations and pass orders. (w) In pursuance of the said direction, the Secretary to Government, Finance Department, issued a communication dated 1.10.2007, rejecting the claims of the drivers. Therefore, several drivers formed themselves into several groups and filed a batch of 9 writ petitions in W.P.Nos. 2865, 4254, 4255, 4256, 4288, 4290, 4357 and 13524 of 2008, 33874 of 2007. By a common order dated 30.9.2008, a learned Judge of this Court, allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the impugned orders dated 1.10.2007 and directing the Government to grant the benefit of Selection Grade and Special Grade to the drivers of various Government Departments, as per G.O.Ms.No.162 dated 13.4.1998.
(x) Interestingly, the prayers made in the above batch of 9 writ petitions, fell under three different categories. In one set of writ petitions, the prayer was for fixing the Selection and Special Grade scales of pay at Rs.5000/- and Rs.5500/- respectively. In the other two sets of writ petitions, the prayer was only to extend the benefit of appropriate scale of pay. Therefore, the operative portion of the order passed on 30.9.2008 was also not for a specific fixation but only for appropriate fixation. It will be useful to extract the operative portion of the order dated 30.9.2008 passed by the learned Judge in W.P.No.4288 of 2008 batch of cases as follows:-
"7. In view of the same, these writ petitions are allowed. The impugned letter of the first respondent dated 1.10.2007 is set aside with a direction to the first respondent to pass appropriate orders in respect of fixation of pay for Selection Grade and Special Grade to the drivers of various Government Departments relating to the petitioners as per G.O.Ms.No.162 Finance (Pay Cell) dated 13.4.1998 and confer the said benefits and such orders shall be passed by the first respondent within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
(y) Though the order of the learned Judge dated 30.9.2008 did not specifically grant a particular scale of pay to the writ petitioners, the Government of Tamil Nadu, quite unfortunately, challenged the order of the learned Judge in a batch of writ appeals W.A.Nos. 383 to 391 of 2009, inviting trouble for themselves. These writ appeals were dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court, together with a writ petition in W.P.No.893 of 2009, by a common order dated 1.9.2009. (z) The order of the learned Judge dated 30.9.2008 and that of the Division Bench dated 1.9.2009, virtually opened the flood gates leading to the filing of innumerable writ petitions by batches and batches of drivers of various Government Departments. (aa) Unfortunately, when batches and batches of drivers queued up before this Court, this Court found it convenient to dispose of many of those cases even at the stage of admission, without even ordering notices to the concerned departments, on the ground that the issue raised in those writ petitions were covered by the order of the single Judge dated 30.9.2008 and the order of the Division Bench dated 1.9.2009. For instance, one writ petition in W.P.No.22919 of 2010 was allowed on 7.10.2010 on the basis of the order of the learned Judge dated 30.9.2008 and the order of the Division Bench dated 1.9.2009. Another writ petition in W.P.No.26103 of 2010 was allowed on 26.11.2010, on the basis of the order passed in W.P.No.22919 of 2010. (ab) In the meantime, the State of Tamil Nadu filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, as against the order of the Division Bench in W.A.No.383 of 2009 batch dated 1.9.2009. In February 2010, the Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing S.L.P.(Civil) No.35969 of 2009 and ordered the issue of notice. (ac) Despite the pendency of the Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Tamil Nadu, this Court continued to allow batches and batches of writ petitions even at the admission stage, on the basis of the judgment of the Division Bench dated 1.9.2009. On 17.9.2012, a learned Judge allowed W.P.Nos. 20543, 22629, 22631, 22640 and 23193 of 2012. (ad) What is more disturbing is the fact that apart from getting some of those writ petitions allowed on the ground that the issue was covered by the previous decisions of this Court, the writ petitioners also managed to coerce the Government to implement those orders, under threat of contempt. (ae) The problems so created, started getting compounded by the subsequent developments. The order passed by a learned Judge on 17.9.2012 in W.P.Nos. 22640 of 2012 batch of cases became the subject matter of a writ appeal in W.A.No.526 of 2013. A Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ appeal by an order dated 26.3.2013. A Special Leave Petition in S.L.P.(Civil) No.14007 of 2013 was filed by the State against the said order of the Division Bench. But the same was dismissed by the Supreme Court in limini by an order dated 21.8.2013. Perhaps, it was not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court that another Special Leave Petition in S.L.P.(Civil) No.35969 of 2009 was actually pending after the issue of notice. Therefore, after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, an attempt was made in vain, by the State to seek a review of the order passed in W.A.No.526 of 2013. But the same was dismissed even at the stage of condonation of delay, by an order dated 14.8.2014 in M.P.No.1 of 2014 in Rev.Appl.SR.No.24899 of 2014. (af) This order was challenged before the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 29757 of 2014. But in the meantime, the Government was compelled to implement the order of the learned Judge dated 17.9.2012, under threat of contempt in Cont.P.No.1909 of 2014. (ag) Therefore, yet another batch of cases came to be filed in W.P.Nos.18352, 26591 to 26593, 29119, 29134, 29146, 29248, 29257, 29261, 29328, 29329, 29344 and 29239 of 2012. All these writ petitions were allowed by a learned Judge of this Court at the admission stage, on 26.11.2012, on the basis of the earlier orders of the Court. (ah) The Madurai Bench of this Court contributed its own mite, when a learned Judge allowed three writ petitions in W.P.(MD) Nos. 10594, 10596 and 10597 of 2010 by order dated 26.8.2010, setting aside the Government letter dated 1.10.2007, whereby the claim of drivers had been rejected by the Government. This order was confirmed on appeals in W.A.(MD) Nos. 130 to 132 of 2011 by an order dated 14.2.2011. But even here, the direction of the learned Judge as well as the Division Bench were not for the grant of a specific time scale of pay but for fixation in the appropriate scale under G.O.Ms.No.162. The Special Leave Petitions in S.L.P.(Civil) Nos. 12886 to 12888 of 2013 were dismissed by the Supreme Court on 19.7.2013. (ai) In a nutshell, several writ petitions came to be allowed in favour of the drivers and the appeals filed by the State before the Division Bench as well as before the Supreme Court got dismissed, even during the period when S.L.P.(Civil) No.35969 of 2009 arising out of the earliest Judgment of the Division Bench dated 1.9.2009 was pending before the Supreme Court. It will be worthwhile to present these cases in a tabular form as follows:-
W.P.No. Date of Order W.A.No. Date of Order S.L.P.No. Date of Order 20256/2010 19.1.2011 67/2012 18.1.2012 14715/2012 10.9.2012 7573/2011 24.3.2011 342/2012 17.4.2012 10836/2012 16.4.2012 2243/2012 9.10.2012 6602/2013 27.9.2013 27775/2010 16.12.2010 2657/2012 6.12.2012 22629 to 22640/2012 17.9.2012 1478 & 1479/2013 27.1.2015 27780/2010 16.12.2010 1241/2012 27.1.2015 (aj) Therefore, what was ignited by the earliest order of a learned Judge dated 30.9.2008, by merely directing the Government to grant appropriate scale of pay under G.O.Ms.No.162, got exploded in a large scale with specific directions for a scale of Rs.5000/- or Rs.5500/-, being passed in the subsequent batches of writ petitions and those orders getting confirmed in writ appeals. All this happened, even during the pendency of the Special Leave Petition S.L.P.(Civil) No.35969 of 2009 filed against the earliest order. Therefore, all parties virtually became fait accompli.
(ak) The last nail on the coffin was driven when the aforesaid S.L.P.(Civil) No.35969 of 2009 was dismissed by the Supreme Court by an order dated 25.2.2015. Though this order was passed after initially ordering notice, it was nevertheless a simple one line order of dismissal, without getting into the merits. (al) Therefore, following the said order, one writ appeal in W.A.No. 342 of 2015 was dismissed on 31.3.2015. (am) But when things were moving completely out of control, one batch of writ petitions came up before D.Hariparanthaman, J. Shocked at the manner in which G.O.Ms.No.162 was wrongly construed and the earliest decision of this Court was wrongly interpreted, the learned Judge went into great detail and by an order dated 18.11.2013, he dismissed a batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos. 1418, 10946 to 10948, 10974, 11285, 18275, 18770 to 18789, 18880, 18881, 19501, 20605 to 20650, 22279 to 22299 and 22342 to 22355 of 2013. (an) Finding a silver lining in the aforesaid order and finding that still a batch of 18 writ appeals filed by the State of Tamil Nadu against various orders of various learned Judges and a fresh batch of 109 writ petitions from hundreds of drivers are pending with many more in the offing, these 18 writ appeals and 109 writ petitions were directed to be grouped together and all of them were placed before us for disposal. This is the long and short history of this whole litigation.
3. We have heard Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Advocate General appearing for the State, which is the appellant in all the 18 writ appeals and whose officers are the respondents in the 109 writ petitions. We have also heard Messers.L.Chandrakumar, M.Ravi and Mr.Sunilkumar, learned counsel appearing for the individuals.
4. For the purpose of easy appreciation and for a clear understanding of the magnitude of the problem, we present in a tabular form, the details of the writ appeal numbers, the writ petitions against which they arise, the date of the order passed in those writ petitions, the number of drivers involved in those writ petitions and the fact as to whether they are in service or already retired. Sl.
No. W.A. No. Appellant Respondent W.P. Nos.
Prayer in W.P Date of Order
1. 1398 of 2013 7 Appellants (Sericulture and Treasury Department) 18 Respondents (Employees of Sericulture Department ) 8698 of 2011 Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to fix / refix the Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule-II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at Rs.5000-150-8000 and 5,500-175-9,000 respectively to the Petitioners with all consequential monetary benefits and to pay all arrears with effect from 01.01.1996 to all the Selection Grade and Special Grade Drivers within a stipulated time period.
09.06.2011
2. 1605 of 2013 2 Appellants (Rural Development and Local Administration and Treasury Department) 1 Respondent (Employee of Rural Development and Local Administration) 29328 of 2012 Same prayer as above. Pay scale sought is 4000-6000,5000-8000 and 5500-9000 26.11.2012
3. 1932 of 2013 7 Appellants (District Collector, Sub Collector, Excise Department, Tahsildar, Treasury Department) 5 Respondents (Employees) 26591 of 2012 Same as No.1 Pay scale sought is 4000-6000, 5000-8000 and 5500-9000 26.11.2012
4. 2069 of 2013 6 Appellants (Health Services, Animal Husbandry, Treasury Department) 25 Employees 11295 of 2012 Same as No.1 23.04.2012
5. 2073 of 2013 3 Appellants (Collector, Panchayat, Treasury Department) 42 Employees 26103 of 2010 Same as No.1 26.11.2010
6. 2541 of 2013 2 Appellants (Integrated Child Development Scheme, Treasury Department) 4 Employees 14482 of 2012 Same as No.1. Pay Scale Sought is Rs.5000 and Rs. 5500.
7.6.2012
7. 44 of 2014 1 Appellant (Chennai Corporation) 32 Employees 11747 of 2012 Same as No.1. Pay Scale Sought is Rs.5000- 8000 and Rs. 5500- 9000 24.04.2012
8. 45 of 2014 1 Appellant (Chennai Corporation) 50 Employees 114465 of 2012 Same as No.1. Pay Scale Sought is Rs.5000- 8000 7.6.2012
9. 291 of 2012 2 Appellants (Collector and Panchayat) 80 Employees 25760 of 2010 Same as No.1 16.11.2010
10. 1221 of 2014 2 Appellants ( Public Health and Preventive Medicine Department and Health Services) 1 Employee 17438 of 2010 Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a certiorarified mandamus to call for the record of the Respondents in connection with the impugned orders issued in NA.KA. No. 2438/09/A1 dated 11.03.2010 by the 2nd Respondent and the Order of the 1st Respondent in R.No.46697/E2/S3/09 -3 dated 13.04.2010 and to quash the same and to consequently direct the Respondents to grant Selection Grade Scale of Pay of Rs.5000-8000 w.e.f 1.01.1996 and special grade scale of pay of Rs.5500-9000 from 1.01.996 and Special Grade scale of pay of Rs.5500-9000 from 1.07.2004 and arrears thereof and on that basis to fix his pay as per revised scales of pay rules 2009, w.e.f 1.07.2006 with monetary benefits from 1.01.2007.
22.04.2013
11. 1284 of 2014 Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board 40 Employees 29754 of 2012 Same as No.1 Pay scale sought is 4000-6000, 5000-8000 and 5500-9000 2.11.2012
12. 1285 of 2014 1 Appellant (Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board) 39 Employees 29764 of 2012 Same as No.1 Pay scale sought is 4000-6000, 5000-8000 and 5500-9000 2.11.2012
13. 1505 of 2014 3 Appellants ( Veterinary Services and Treasury Department) 4 Employees 27232 of 2010 Same as No.1 30.11.2010
14. 1888 of 2013 7 Appellants ( District Collector, Sub Collector, Excise Department, Tahsildar, Treasury Department) 5 Employees 26591 of 2012 Same as No.1 Pay scale sought is 4000-6000, 5000-8000 and 5500-9000 26.11.2012
15. 1889 of 2013 7 Appellants ( District Collector, Revenue Department, Supply and Consumer Protection, Treasury Department) 2 Employees 29329 of 2012 Same as No.1 Pay scale sought is 4000-6000, 5000-8000 and 5500-9000 26.11.2012 Sl.No. W.P.No. No. of Petitioners Department Prayer Whether in Service or Retired
1. 23550 of 2010 1 Highways To call for the records of the 1st Respondent in Letter No.6111/HM/2/2009-4 dated 5.08.2010, quash the same and consequently direct the official respondents to refix the pay and pension of the petitioner after granting Special Grade w.e.f. 2.07.2000 as per Schedule-II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 as per G.O.Ms. No. 162 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998 and pay the arrears of pensionsary and superannuation benefits consequent thereupon.
Retired in 2006
2. 26361 of 2012 3 Education To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 respectively to the petitioner drivers from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period.
In Service
3. 30616 of 2012 4 Highways Directing the respondents to refix the pension and superannuation benefits of the petitioners after granting Super Grade w.e.f from the date the petitioner became entitled to the same and refixing the pay of the petitioner and the Special Grade of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 w.e.f 1.01.1996 as per G.O.Ms.No.162 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998 and pay the arrears of pensionsary and superannuation benefits along with the interest consequent thereupon. Retired
4. 31620 of 2012 3 Water Supply Sewerage Board To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 and Rs 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioner drivers from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade and 10 years in the Selection Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period. Retired
5. 34718 of 2012 1 Water Supply Sewerage Board To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 and Rs 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioner drivers from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade and 10 years in the Selection Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period. Retired
6. 34719 of 2012 1 Water Supply Sewerage Board To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 and Rs 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioner drivers from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade and 10 years in the Selection Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period Retired
7. 1420 of 2013 13 Housing Board To direct the respondents to implement the Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 5000-8000 and 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioners/drivers from 1.01.1996 with all consequential monetary benefits and revise their pensionary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period. Retired
8. 4200 of 2013 1 Forest Department Calling for records on the file of the respondent herein in proceedings No.3570/12/E2, dated 28.09.2012 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent herein to continue to disburse all the benefits that arise out of office proceedings No.3570/12/E2, dated 31.05.2012 issued by the respondent herein w.e.f 28.09.2012. In Service
9. 9007 of 2013 2 Animal Husbandry To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 and Rs 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioner drivers from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade and 10 years in the Selection Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period Retired
10. 29336 of 2013 1 Water Supply Sewerage Board To direct the respondents to implement the Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at Rs 5500-9000 to the petitioner driver from 1.01.1996 with all consequential monetary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period Retired
11. 29337 of 2013 1 Water Supply Sewerage Board To direct the respondents to implement the Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at Rs 5500-9000 to the petitioner driver from 1.01.1996 with all consequential monetary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period Retired
12. 29353 of 2013 1 Health Services To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 and Rs 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioner driver from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade and 10 years in the Selection Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period In Service
13. 29381 of 2013 1 Social Welfare To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 and Rs 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioner driver from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade and 10 years in the Selection Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period In Service
14. 29429 0f 2013 1 Health Services To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 and Rs 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioner driver from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade and 10 years in the Selection Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period In Service
15. 21889 of 2013 1 Health Services Directing the respondents to implement the Scale of Pay as per G.O.Ms.No.162 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998 with all consequential monetary benefits and to pay all arrears within the stipulated time as maybe fixed by this Honble Court. In Service
16. 21890 of 2013 1 Health Services Directing the respondents to implement the Scale of Pay as per G.O.Ms.No.162 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998 with all consequential monetary benefits and to pay all arrears within the stipulated time as maybe fixed by this Honble Court. In Service
17. 21891 of 2013 1 Health Services Directing the respondents to implement the Scale of Pay as per G.O.Ms.No.162 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998 with all consequential monetary benefits and to pay all arrears within the stipulated time as maybe fixed by this Honble Court. In Service
18. 21892 of 2013 1 Health Services Directing the respondents to implement the Scale of Pay as per G.O.Ms.No.162 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998 with all consequential monetary benefits and to pay all arrears within the stipulated time as maybe fixed by this Honble Court. In Service
19. 21893 of 2013 1 Health Services Directing the respondents to implement the Scale of Pay as per G.O.Ms.No.162 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998 with all consequential monetary benefits and to pay all arrears within the stipulated time as maybe fixed by this Honble Court. In Service
20. 21894 of 2013 1 Health Services Directing the respondents to implement the Scale of Pay as per G.O.Ms.No.162 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998 with all consequential monetary benefits and to pay all arrears within the stipulated time as maybe fixed by this Honble Court. In Service
21. 21895 of 2013 1 Health Services Directing the respondents to implement the Scale of Pay as per G.O.Ms.No.162 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998 with all consequential monetary benefits and to pay all arrears within the stipulated time as maybe fixed by this Honble Court. In Service
22. 21896 of 2013 1 Health Services Directing the respondents to implement the Scale of Pay as per G.O.Ms.No.162 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998 with all consequential monetary benefits and to pay all arrears within the stipulated time as maybe fixed by this Honble Court. In Service
23. 21897 of 2013 1 Health Services Directing the respondents to implement the Scale of Pay as per G.O.Ms.No.162 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998 with all consequential monetary benefits and to pay all arrears within the stipulated time as maybe fixed by this Honble Court. In Service
24. 21898 of 2013 1 Health Services Directing the respondents to implement the Scale of Pay aSL.NOs per G.O.Ms.No.162 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998 with all consequential monetary benefits and to pay all arrears within the stipulated time as maybe fixed by this Honble Court. In Service
25. 21899 of 2013 1 Health Services Directing the respondents to implement the Scale of Pay as per G.O.Ms.No.162 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998 with all consequential monetary benefits and to pay all arrears within the stipulated time as maybe fixed by this Honble Court. In Service
26. 21900 of 2013 1 Health Services Directing the respondents to implement the Scale of Pay as per G.O.Ms.No.162 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998 with all consequential monetary benefits and to pay all arrears within the stipulated time as maybe fixed by this Honble Court. In Service
27. 27977 of 2013 12 State Government Directing the respondents to extend the appropriate revised scales of pay in so far as the Selection Grade and Special Grade driver to the petitioners are concerned forthwith on the basis of the VIth pay scale recommendations (Revised Pay Rules) as ordered in G.O.Ms.No.162 Finance(Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998. In Service
28. 29669 of 2013 1 Agriculture Department To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 and Rs 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioner driver from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade and 10 years in the Selection Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period In Service
29. 30047 of 2013 1 Agriculture Department To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 and Rs 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioner driver from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade and 10 years in the Selection Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period In Service
30. 30081 of 2013 1 Agriculture Department To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 and Rs 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioner driver from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade and 10 years in the Selection Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period In Service
31. 30150 of 2013 1 Public Works Department To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 and Rs 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioner driver from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade and 10 years in the Selection Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period In Service
32. 30318 of 2013 20 Industrial Investment Corporation To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 and Rs 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioner driver from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade and 10 years in the Selection Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period In Service
33. 29171 of 2013 1 Health Services To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 and Rs 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioner driver from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade and 10 years in the Selection Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period In Service
34. 29175 of 2013 1 Revenue Department To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 and Rs 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioner driver from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade and 10 years in the Selection Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period Retired
35. 29333 of 2013 1 Forest Department To direct the respondents to implement the Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at Rs 5500-9000 to the petitioner driver from 1.01.1996 with all consequential monetary benefits and also to revise his pensionary benefits on that basis, pay all arrears within a stipulated time period. Retired
36. 29352 of 2013 1 Health Department To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 and Rs 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioner driver from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade and 10 years in the Selection Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period In service
37. 29514 of 2013 1 Health Department To direct the respondents to implement the Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at Rs 5500-9000 to the petitioner driver from 1.01.1996 with all consequential monetary benefits and also to revise his pensionary benefits on that basis, pay all arrears within a stipulated time period. Retired
38. 29525 of 2013 1 Forest Department To direct the respondents to implement the Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 . G.O.Ms.No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998, w.e.f 1.01.1996 at 5000-8000 and 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioners/drivers from 1.01.1996 with all consequential monetary benefits and revise their pensionary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period. Retired
39. 28919 of 2013 1 Commissioner,Municipal Corporation Directing respondents to refix the petitioners Scale of Pay as per .O.Ms.No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998, w.e.f 1.01.1996 In Service
40. 28920 of 2013 1 Commissioner,Municipal Corporation Directing respondents to refix the petitioners Scale of Pay as per .O.Ms.No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998, w.e.f 1.01.1996 In Service
41. 28921 of 2013 1 Commissioner,Municipal Corporation Directing respondents to refix the petitioners Scale of Pay as per .O.Ms.No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998, w.e.f 1.01.1996 In Service
42. 28922 of 2013 1 Commissioner,Municipal Corporation Directing respondents to refix the petitioners Scale of Pay as per .O.Ms.No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998, w.e.f 1.01.1996 In Service
43. 28923 of 2013 1 Commissioner,Municipal Corporation Directing respondents to refix the petitioners Scale of Pay as per .O.Ms.No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998, w.e.f 1.01.1996 In Service
44. 28924 of 2013 1 Commissioner,Municipal Corporation Directing respondents to refix the petitioners Scale of Pay as per .O.Ms.No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998, w.e.f 1.01.1996 In Service
45. 28925 of 2013 1 Commissioner,Municipal Corporation Directing respondents to refix the petitioners Scale of Pay as per .O.Ms.No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998, w.e.f 1.01.1996 In Service
46. 28926 of 2013 1 Commissioner,Municipal Corporation Directing respondents to refix the petitioners Scale of Pay as per .O.Ms.No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998, w.e.f 1.01.1996 In Service
47. 28927 of 2013 1 Commissioner,Municipal Corporation Directing respondents to refix the petitioners Scale of Pay as per .O.Ms.No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998, w.e.f 1.01.1996 In Service
48. 28928 of 2013 1 Commissioner,Municipal Corporation Directing respondents to refix the petitioners Scale of Pay as per .O.Ms.No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998, w.e.f 1.01.1996 In Service
49. 28929 of 2013 1 Commissioner,Municipal Corporation Directing respondents to refix the petitioners Scale of Pay as per .O.Ms.No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998, w.e.f 1.01.1996 In Service
50. 28930 of 2013 1 Commissioner,Municipal Corporation Directing respondents to refix the petitioners Scale of Pay as per .O.Ms.No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998, w.e.f 1.01.1996 In Service
51. 28931 of 2013 1 Commissioner,Municipal Corporation Directing respondents to refix the petitioners Scale of Pay as per .O.Ms.No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998, w.e.f 1.01.1996 In Service
52. 28932 of 2013 1 Commissioner,Municipal Corporation Directing respondents to refix the petitioners Scale of Pay as per .O.Ms.No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998, w.e.f 1.01.1996 In Service
53. 28933 of 2013 1 Commissioner,Municipal Corporation Directing respondents to refix the petitioners Scale of Pay as per .O.Ms.No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998, w.e.f 1.01.1996 In Service
54. 28934 of 2013 1 Commissioner,Municipal Corporation Directing respondents to refix the petitioners Scale of Pay as per .O.Ms.No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998, w.e.f 1.01.1996 In Service
55. 28935 of 2013 1 Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Directing respondents to refix the petitioners Scale of Pay as per .O.Ms.No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998, w.e.f 1.01.1996 In Service
56. 28936 of 2013 1 Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Directing respondents to refix the petitioners Scale of Pay as per .O.Ms.No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998, w.e.f 1.01.1996 In Service
57. 28937 of 2013 1 Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Directing respondents to refix the petitioners Scale of Pay as per .O.Ms.No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998, w.e.f 1.01.1996 In Service
58. 28938 of 2013 1 Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Directing respondents to refix the petitioners Scale of Pay as per .O.Ms.No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998, w.e.f 1.01.1996 In Service
59. 28939 of 2013 1 Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Directing respondents to refix the petitioners Scale of Pay as per .O.Ms.No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998, w.e.f 1.01.1996 In Service
60. 28940 of 2013 1 Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Directing respondents to refix the petitioners Scale of Pay as per .O.Ms.No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998, w.e.f 1.01.1996 In Service
61. 28941 of 2013 1 Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Directing respondents to refix the petitioners Scale of Pay as per .O.Ms.No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998, w.e.f 1.01.1996 In Service
62. 33862 of 2013 3 Forest Department To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade, Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998. G.O.Ms.No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 13.04.1998, w.e.f 1.01.1996 at Rs. 4000-6000, Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioners/drivers from 1.01.1996 with all consequential monetary benefits and revise their pensionary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period. In Service
63. 33869 of 2013 25 Panchayat Union To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 and Rs 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioner drivers from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade and 10 years in the Selection Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period In Service
64. 33922 of 2013 2 Forest Department To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 and Rs 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioner drivers from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade and 10 years in the Selection Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period In Service
65. 33928 of 2013 3 Forest Services To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 and Rs 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioner drivers from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade and 10 years in the Selection Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period In Service
66. 33931 of 2013 3 Health Services To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade scales of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at Rs 5500-9000 to the petitioner drivers from 01.01.1996 with all consequential monetary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period Retired
67. 33269 of 2013 1 Anna Zoological Park To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 and Rs 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioner drivers from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade and 10 years in the Selection Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and also to revise their pensionary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period In Service
68. 33270 of 2013 1 Forest Department To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 and Rs 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioner drivers from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade and 10 years in the Selection Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and also to revise their pensionary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period In Service
69. 33280 of 2013 1 Audit Department To direct the respondents to implement the Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at Rs 5000-8000 and Rs 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioner drivers from the 01.01.1996 with all consequential monetary benefits and also to revise their pensionary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period Retired
70. 33385 of 2013 `1 Forest Service To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 and Rs 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioner drivers from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade and 10 years in the Selection Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and also to revise their pensionary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period In Service
71. 33477 of 2013 1 Guindy National Park To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 and Rs 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioner drivers from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade and 10 years in the Selection Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and also to revise their pensionary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period In Service
72. 33858 of 2013 4 Forest Department To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 and Rs 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioner drivers from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade and 10 years in the Selection Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period In Service
73. 30350 of 2013 3 Animal Husbandry To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 and Rs 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioner drivers from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade and 10 years in the Selection Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period In Service
74. 30359 of 2013 7 Panchayat Union and Block Development To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 and Rs 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioner drivers from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade and 10 years in the Selection Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period In Service
75. 30669 of 2013 4 Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation Directing the Respondent to implement the Special Grade Scales of Pay Rules,1998 i.e. Rs.5500-9000 to petitioner from 1.1.1996 with all consequential monetary benefits and also to revise their pensionary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period Retired
76. 33263 of 2013 1 Agriculture Department To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade and scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 and respectively to the petitioner drivers from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period In Service
77. 33264 of 2013 1 Agriculture Department To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade and scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 and respectively to the petitioner drivers from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period In Service
78. 30319 of 2013 2 Agriculture Department To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 and Rs 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioner drivers from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade and 10 years in the Selection Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period In Service
79. 30333 of 2013 2 Health Services Directing the Respondent to implement the Special Grade Scales of Pay Rules,1998 i.e. Rs.5500-9000 to petitioner from 1.1.1996 with all consequential monetary benefits and also to revise their pensionary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period Retired
80. 30334 of 2013 5 Forest Department To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 and Rs 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioner drivers from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade and 10 years in the Selection Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and revise all pensionary benefits pay all arrears within a stipulated time period Retired
81. 30335 of 2013 5 Medical Services To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 and Rs 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioner drivers from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade and 10 years in the Selection Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and revise all pensionary benefits pay all arrears within a stipulated time period In Service
82. 30336 of 2013 5 Health Services To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 and Rs 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioner drivers from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade and 10 years in the Selection Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and revise all pensionary benefits pay all arrears within a stipulated time period In Service
83. 32147 of 2014 1 Collector Directing the respondents herein to refix the pay to the petitioner, in selection and Special Grade scales of pay adopting the scale of Rs.5000-150-8000, Rs.5500-175-9000 as per G.O.Ms. No. 162 Finance ( Pay Cell) dated 13.04.1998 and consequently pay the revised pension and arrears of difference in salary and arrears in pension difference along with interest at the rate of 12% w.e.f 01.01.1996 based on refixed scale of pay to the petitioner within a reasonable time. In Service
84. 32148 of 2014 1 Collector Directing the respondents herein to refix the pay to the petitioner, in selection and Special Grade scales of pay adopting the scale of Rs.5000-150-8000, Rs.5500-175-9000 as per G.O.Ms. No. 162 Finance ( Pay Cell) dated 13.04.1998 and G.O.Ms. No. 65 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 26.2.2011 and as per letter No. 63305/Pay Cell/2010-1 dated 08.11.2010 issued by the Pricncipal Secretary to Government, Finance (PC) Department and consequently pay the revised pension and arrears of difference in salary and arrears in pension difference along with interest at the rate of 12% w.e.f 01.01.1996 based on such refixed scale of pay to the petitioner within a reasonable time. In Service
85. 32149 of 2014 1 Collector Directing the respondents herein to refix the pay to the petitioner, in selection and Special Grade scales of pay adopting the scale of Rs.5000-150-8000, Rs.5500-175-9000 as per G.O.Ms. No. 162 Finance ( Pay Cell) dated 13.04.1998 and G.O.Ms. No. 65 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 26.2.2011 and as per letter No. 63305/Pay Cell/2010-1 dated 08.11.2010 issued by the Pricncipal Secretary to Government, Finance (PC) Department and consequently pay the revised pension and arrears of difference in salary and arrears in pension difference along with interest at the rate of 12% w.e.f 01.01.1996 based on such refixed scale of pay to the petitioner within a reasonable time.
In Service
86. 32150 of 2014 1 Collector Directing the respondents herein to refix the pay to the petitioner, in selection and Special Grade scales of pay adopting the scale of Rs.5000-150-8000, Rs.5500-175-9000 as per G.O.Ms. No. 162 Finance ( Pay Cell) dated 13.04.1998 and consequently pay the revised pension and arrears of difference in salary and arrears in pension difference along with interest at the rate of 12% w.e.f 01.01.1996 based on refixed scale of pay to the petitioner within a reasonable time. In Service
87. 32151 1 Collector Directing the respondents herein to refix the pay to the petitioner, in selection and Special Grade scales of pay adopting the scale of Rs.5000-150-8000, Rs.5500-175-9000 as per G.O.Ms. No. 162 Finance ( Pay Cell) dated 13.04.1998 and consequently pay the revised pension and arrears of difference in salary and arrears in pension difference along with interest at the rate of 12% w.e.f 01.01.1996 based on refixed scale of pay to the petitioner within a reasonable time. In Service
88. 32152 of 2014 1 Collector Directing the respondents herein to refix the pay to the petitioner, in selection and Special Grade scales of pay adopting the scale of Rs.5000-150-8000, Rs.5500-175-9000 as per G.O.Ms. No. 162 Finance ( Pay Cell) dated 13.04.1998 and consequently pay the revised pension and arrears of difference in salary and arrears in pension difference along with interest at the rate of 12% w.e.f 01.01.1996 based on refixed scale of pay to the petitioner within a reasonable time. In Service
89. 32153 of 2014 1 Collector Directing the respondents herein to refix the pay to the petitioner, in selection and Special Grade scales of pay adopting the scale of Rs.5000-150-8000, Rs.5500-175-9000 as per G.O.Ms. No. 162 Finance ( Pay Cell) dated 13.04.1998 and consequently pay the revised pension and arrears of difference in salary and arrears in pension difference along with interest at the rate of 12% w.e.f 01.01.1996 based on refixed scale of pay to the petitioner within a reasonable time. In Service
90. 4612 of 2014 1 Health Services To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade and scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 and respectively to the petitioner drivers from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period In Service
91. 4945 of 2014 1 Animal Husbandry To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 and Rs 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioner drivers from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade and 10 years in the Selection Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period In Service 92 5597 of 2014 4 Health Services To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 and Rs 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioner drivers from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade and 10 years in the Selection Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period In Service
93. 5604 of 2014 1 Social Welfare To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 and Rs 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioner drivers from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade and 10 years in the Selection Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period In Service
94. 7563 of 2014 4 Forest To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 and Rs 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioner drivers from 01.01.1996 with all consequential monetary benefits and also to revise their pensionary benefits on that basis and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period Retired
95. 7959 of 2014 1 Public Health and Preventive Medicines To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 and Rs 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioner drivers from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade and 10 years in the Selection Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period In Service
96. 22812 of 2014 1 Social welfare Directing the respondent herein to consider the petitioners representation dated 02.06.2014 for the issuance of benefits as per G.O.Ms. No. 162 Finance (Pay Cell) dated 13.04.1998 and consequently pay the revised pay scale with effect from 01.01.1996 and pay all connected arrears. In Service
97. 1483 of 2014 1 Water Supply department To call for the records relating to the impugned rejection order in Sc.Vaa.Pa.Na.Ka.No. D1/1365/2002 dated 22-05-2012 passed by the second respendent and quash the same and consequently directing the Second Respondent to fix the scale of pay to the Petitioner as 4000-100-6000 based upon G.O.Ms. No. 162 dated 13.04.1998 and G.O.Ms. No. 465 dated 31.08.1998 In Service
98. 4010 of 2014 1 Collector To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 and Rs 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioner drivers from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade and 10 years in the Selection Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period In Service
99. 4337 of 2014 4 Block Development office To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 and Rs 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioner drivers from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period In Service
100. 4561 of 2014 1 Food Safety and Drug Administration To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 respectively to the petitioner drivers from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period In Service
101. 4562 of 2014 1 Health Services To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 respectively to the petitioner drivers from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period In Service
102. 4599 of 2014 1 Rural Health Services To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 respectively to the petitioner drivers from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period In Service
103. 77 of 2014 1 Forest To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 and Rs 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioner drivers from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade and 10 years in the Selection Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period In Service 104 87 of 2014 1 Medical Services To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 respectively to the petitioner drivers from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period In Service
105. 355 of 2014 1 Horticulture Department To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 and Rs 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioner drivers from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade and 10 years in the Selection Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period In Service
106. 356 of 2014 1 Government Industrial Technical Institute To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 and Rs 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioner drivers from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade and 10 years in the Selection Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and also to revise their pensionary benefit and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period In Service
107. 1037 of 2014 1 Health Services To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 and Rs 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioner drivers from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade and 10 years in the Selection Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and also to revise their pensionary benefit and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period In Service
108. 1038 of 2014 1 Health Services To direct the respondents to implement the Ordinary Grade and Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at 4000-6000 and 5000-8000 and Rs 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioner drivers from the respective dates of completion of 10 years of service in the Ordinary Grade and 10 years in the Selection Grade with all consequential monetary benefits and also to revise their pensionary benefit and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period In Service
109. 3999 of 2014 1 Family welfare office To direct the respondents to implement the Selection Grade and Special Grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules 1998 at RS. 5000-8000 and Rs 5500-9000 respectively to the petitioner drivers from 01.01.1996 with all consequential monetary benefits and also to revise their pensionary benefit and pay all arrears within a stipulated time period Retired
5. The factual details that we have culled out from the 18 writ appeals and 109 writ petitions on hand, would show the following:-
(i) that what was claimed by all the employees in the writ petitions, was a grant of Selection Grade and Special Grade scales of pay in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.162, dated 13.4.1998;
(ii) that all the employees pitch their claim only on the basis of the earliest order of a learned Judge of this Court dated 30.9.2008, which was confirmed by a Division Bench by an order dated 1.9.2009;
(iii) that in the order that happens to be the original source for this litigation, what was prayed for and what was granted was only a direction to grant Selection Grade and Special Grade scales of pay in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.162 and not a specific direction to grant Rs.5,000/- or Rs.5,500/-;
(iv) that unfortunately, this Court, while passing orders in favour of other employees, following the original source namely the order of the learned Judge dated 30.9.2008, made a specific mention of the amount such as Rs.5,000/- or Rs.5,500/-, though that was not the purport of the first order;
(v) that in most of the writ petitions, that were already disposed of and in most of the writ petitions which are now pending, the prayer is not for the grant of a particular time scale of pay but only for the grant of the benefits of the Government Order G.O.Ms.No.162, dated 13.4.1998;
(vi) that unfortunately, most of the writ petitions filed on the basis of the earliest order of the learned Judge dated 30.9.2008, were allowed even at the time of admission, without any notice to the Government, on the sole ground that the reliefs claimed in the writ petitions are already covered by the order of the learned single Judge dated 30.9.2008, which was confirmed by the Division Bench by the judgment dated 1.9.2009;
(vii) that as a consequence of all the writ petitions and writ appeals getting disposed of at the stage of admission, the Government was never in a position even to raise the question of delay and laches on the part of the employees in approaching the Court;
(viii) that as the historical background of this litigation narrated in para 2 of the above would show, 99% of the cases allowed in favour of the employees, were filed at least after 10 to 12 years of the Government Order G.O.Ms.No.162, dated 13.4.1998 and the question of delay and laches was never examined;
(ix) that as could be seen from the two tables given under para 4 above, most of the employees who have come before the Court have retired long ago and they came up with writ petitions seeking revised scales of pay with retrospective effect from 1.1.1996, by filing writ petitions at least after a decade namely after the year 2006; and
(x) that it is not a case where the rights of the employees were tested on the touchstone of well settled principles of law, but a case where this Court got entangled into a web created by the original sin, so that it was compelled to follow the previous orders without any end in sight now.
6. Keeping the above factual details in mind, if we now go back to the core question as to what the employees are actually entitled to, it will be clear that the recommendations of the V Tamil Nadu Pay Commission were implemented with effect from 1.6.1988, by the Government issuing a set of Rules known as Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1989, under G.O. Ms.No.666, Finance dated 27.6.1989. These Rules were issued in exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. The Schedule to these Rules contain a list of about 30 common categories of posts. The post of driver/van driver was at S.No.11 in the first part of the Schedule to the 1989 Rules. It was mentioned in Sl.No.11 of the Schedule to the 1989 Rules that the post of driver which carried a scale of pay of Rs.610-1075, would have a revised scale of pay of Rs.950-1500/-.
7. The revised pay scale of Rs.950-1500 as ordered in the Schedule to the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1989 was further revised to Rs.975-1660 under G.O.Ms.No.818, Finance, dated 9.9.1989. Therefore, there is no dispute or doubt about the fact that upon the implementation of the recommendations of the V Tamil Nadu Pay Commission and the Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1989, the scale of pay of the ordinary grade of the post of driver became Rs.975-1660. None of the drivers who came before this Court and succeeded in all previous cases and none of the drivers who are now before us, dispute this fact namely that the ordinary grade scale of pay of their post became Rs.975-1660 after the implementation of the V Tamil Nadu Pay Commission.
8. Therefore, when Selection and Special Grades were granted to persons who had completed 10 years and 20 years of service respectively, under G.O.Ms.No.304, Finance, dated 28.3.1990, the Selection Grade Scale of pay was made as Rs.1200-2040 and the Special Grade scale of pay was as Rs.1320-2040, for all posts carrying ordinary grade scale of pay of Rs.975-1660. This was under Annexure I to G.O.Ms.No.304, dated 28.3.1990.
9. Thereafter, the next revision of pay scales came under the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1998, issued under G.O.Ms.No.162, dated 13.4.1998 in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. In Schedule I to the 1998 Rules, a table was provided giving the revised scale of pay that would correspond to every existing scale of pay. In serial number XX of Schedule I to the 1998 Rules, all posts carrying the existing scale of pay of Rs.975-1660 were granted a revised scale of pay of Rs.3200-4900. In Schedule II, the posts carrying the revised ordinary grade scale of pay of Rs.3200-4900 were granted a revised Selection Grade scale of pay of Rs.4000-6000 and a revised Special Grade scale of pay of Rs.4300-6000.
10. Therefore, as we have pointed out earlier, the cumulative effect of all the Government Orders G.O.Ms.No.666, dated 27.6.1989, G.O.Ms.No. 818, dated 9.8.1989, G.O.Ms.No.304, dated 28.3.1990 and G.O.Ms.No. 162, dated 13.4.1998, was as follows:-
(i) that prior to the implementation of the recommendations of the V Tamil Nadu Pay Commission, the scale of pay of drivers was Rs.610-1075;
(ii) that after the implementation of the recommendations of the V Tamil Nadu Pay Commission, this scale of pay was first increased to Rs.950-1500 and later to Rs.975-1660;
(iii) that for an ordinary grade scale of pay of Rs.975-1660, a Selection Grade scale of pay of Rs.1200-2040 and a Special Grade scale of pay of Rs.1320-2040 was granted;
(iv) that after the implementation of the recommendations of the Central Pay Commission, under Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1998, the ordinary grade scale of pay of Rs.975-1660 became Rs.3200-4900, the Selection Grade scale of pay of Rs.1200-2040 became Rs.4000-6000 and the Special Grade scale of pay of Rs.1320-2040 became Rs.4300-6000.
11. Therefore, we are completely at a loss to understand as to how the drivers who came up before this Court started claiming a Selection Grade scale of pay of Rs.5,000-8000 and a Special Grade scale of pay of Rs.5,500-9000. Neither the drivers who came to Court previously explained the rationale behind their claim nor this Court took care to find out what was the recommendation of the Pay Commission and what was actually implemented. Sl.Nos. 6 to 9 in the table under Schedule II to the Tamil Nadu Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 1998 issued under G.O.Ms.No.162, dated 13.4.1998 would steer clear of any doubt that one may have, about who is entitled to what Selection Grade and Special Grade scales of pay. Therefore, that portion is extracted as follows:-
Sl.No. Ordinary Grade Selection Grade Special Grade
6.
3200-85-4900 4000-100-6000 4300-100-6000
7. 3625-85-4900 4300-100-6000 4500-125-7000
8. 4000-100-6000 5000-150-8000 5500-175-9000
9. 4300-100-6000 5000-150-8000 5500-175-9000
12. The drivers never claimed that after the implementation of the Revised Scales of Pay in the year 1998, with effect from 1.1.1996, their ordinary grade scale of pay became Rs.4,000-6000 or Rs.4300-6000. Unless their ordinary grade scale of pay had become Rs.4000-6000 or Rs.4300-6000 with effect from 1.1.1996 under the 1998 Rules, they were not entitled to claim a Selection Grade scale of pay of Rs.5000-8000 and a Special Grade scale of pay of Rs.5500-9000.
13. On the contrary, the ordinary scale of pay of drivers was originally Rs.610-1075. It first became Rs.950-1500 and later became Rs.975-1660. Subsequently, it became Rs.3200-4900. But this was completely lost sight of in a series of litigations that has gone on from 2006 until D.Hariparanthaman, J, demolished the whole myth by his judgment dated 18.11.2013. Therefore, on the core question to what the drivers are entitled to, we have no hesitation in holding that after the issue of the 1998 Revised Scale of Pay Rules, the ordinary grade scale of pay of the drivers was Rs.3200-4900, the Selection Grade scale of pay was Rs.4000-6000 and the Special Grade scale of pay was Rs.4300-6000.
14. Once the factual position about what the drivers are entitled to in the ordinary grade, Selection Grade and the Special Grade is clear, it will be easy for us to answer the legal issues addressed by the learned counsel appearing for the employees. The legal issues raised by all the learned learned counsel appearing for the drivers are:-
(i) that when hundreds of drivers have approached this Court, obtained orders in their favour and those orders have also been implemented, it is not open to the respondents to refuse to extend the same benefit to the remaining employees;
(ii) that when several Benches of this Court both Single and Division, have passed orders in a particular manner, it is not open to the respondents to again and again to re-agitate the same issue in every writ petition; and
(iii) that the contention of the State that an illegality cannot be perpetrated, has to be rejected outright, in view of the settled position that what was done by the Court cannot be treated as an illegality.
CONTENTION 1:
15. The first contention of the Learned Counsel appearing for the employees is that when hundreds of drivers have approached this Court, obtained orders in their favour and those orders have also been implemented, it is not open to the respondents to refuse to extend the same benefit to the remaining employees.
16. In other words, the first contention is based upon Article 14. The Writ Petitioners claim that when one set of employees have already reaped the benefit of fixation of the Selection Grade and Special Grade scales of pay at a particular level, especially through Court orders, the State cannot discriminate the other set of employees.
17. In support of this contention, Mr. R. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioners in three Writ Petitions relies upon two decisions of the Supreme Court, one in Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam v. Bachan Singh [2009 (14) SCC 793] and the second in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Aravind Kumar Shrivastava [2015 (1) SCC 347].
18. But it is seen from the decision of the Supreme Court in Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam that it was a case of a person who rendered services in a work charged establishment for a period of eighteen years from 1963 till 1981, before getting regularised into service and in respect of whom the pensionary benefits were confined only to the period of regular service. The Government itself had issued circulars for counting the previous service, in favour of all similarly placed employees. Therefore the Supreme Court held in Paragraphs 21, 22 and 28 of the Report that there cannot be a discrimination.
19. In other words, the Supreme Court applied Article 14 only after finding that the employee was actually entitled in law for the benefit that he was seeking. The Supreme Court did not apply Article 14 blindfold, merely because other similarly placed employees got a benefit. Therefore, the Court has a duty before invoking Article 14 to see whether the employee is entitled to the benefit he was seeking.
20. In the second decision relied upon by the Writ Petitioner, namely State of Uttar Pradesh v. Aravind Kumar Shrivastava, the Supreme Court addressed itself to the question as to how and when the Courts are obliged to extend the benefit of similar orders to persons who are similarly placed. In Paragraph 22 of the Report, the Supreme Court elicited the following principles, to be applied in such cases:
" 22.1 The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.
22.2. However, this principle is subject to well-recognised exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.
22.3. However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. With such a pronouncement, the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated persons. Such a situation can occur when the subject-matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C.Sharma v. Union of India). On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence."
21. But we are at a loss to understand as to how the above principles could be applied to the cases on hand. All the aforesaid principles could be applied only to cases where the employees are legitimately entitled to some benefit but it was denied to them either wrongly or on a wrong application/interpretation of the rules/circulars. The principles laid down in Aravind Kumar Shrivastava could not be invoked in cases where one set of employees get through Court orders, a benefit that is not legitimately due to them. The principles laid down in the aforesaid decision could be invoked only in two types of cases namely (1) cases of wrongful denial of a rightful benefit or (2) cases of wrongful denial of a doubtful benefit. They cannot be applied to a rightful denial of a benefit which is not due to them.
22. Let us again have a look at the facts of the batch of cases on hand, to see if what the Writ Petitioners demand, is something to which they are legitimately entitled.
23. As we have pointed out earlier, the post of drivers carried an ordinary grade scale of pay of Rs.610-1075/-, before the implementation of the recommendations of the V Tamil Nadu Pay Commission. This was first revised to Rs.950-1500 and later to Rs.975-1660. With effect from 01.01.1996, this ordinary grade scale became Rs.3200-85-4900. The selection grade scale for such an ordinary grade scale became Rs.4000-100-6000 and the Special Grade Scale of Pay for the same ordinary grade scale became Rs.4300-100-6000.
24. The drivers working in all the Departments of the State of Tamil Nadu were actually conscious of what they were actually entitled to. This is why most of them merely prayed in their Writ Petitions for the grant of Selection and Special grades under G.O.Ms.No.162, without specifying the actual amounts as Rs.5000/- or Rs.5500/-.
25. Even in the very first judgement of a learned Judge of this Court dated 30.09.2008, which has led to hundreds and hundreds of Writ Petitions, no direction was issued to fix the selection grade scale at Rs.5000/- and special grade scale at Rs.5500/-. But unfortunately, the subsequent orders passed by this Court, mentioned these amounts, without any basis.
26. Therefore unless the law has developed to such an extent that once the Court commits a mistake, the same becomes irredeemable, even at the cost of public money, it is not possible for us to invoke Article 14. As we have pointed out elsewhere-
(a) the very first order of a learned Judge of this Court merely directed the grant of selection and special grades as per G.O.Ms. No. 162, without indicating the exact scales of pay;
(b) all subsequent orders passed in favour of the other employees, by various learned Judges of this Court, were passed at the stage of admission, without putting the Government on notice and without giving them an opportunity, solely on the basis that the issue raised in those cases were already covered by the decision of a single Judge dated 30.09.2008, which was also affirmed by the Division Bench by an order dated 01.09.2009;
(c) all subsequent orders got implemented by those petitioners, under threat of contempt.
27. Therefore, the Writ Petitioners in the present batch of cases cannot rely upon Article 14, when this Court never went into the question (except in the decision of D.Hariparanthaman,J) as to whether the drivers are entitled to a selection grade scale of pay of Rs.5000/- and a special grade scale of pay of Rs.5500/-.
28. As rightly pointed out by the Learned Advocate General, the pressure that keeps mounting upon this Court due to the huge pendency and the tendency that results therefrom, to dispose of at least those cases which are covered by earlier decisions, even on the first or second date of hearing, has actually led to this position. Therefore we cannot sweep the core issue under the carpet and reiterate the same mistakes by taking recourse to Article 14. Hence we reject the first contention advanced on behalf of the employees. CONTENTION 2:
29. The second contention of the learned counsel appearing for the employees is that when several Benches of this Court both Single and Division, have passed orders in a particular manner, it is not open to the respondents to again and again re-agitate the same issue in every writ petition.
30. In this connection, Mr.M.Ravi, learned counsel for some of the writ petitioners relies upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash Asati v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2012) 5 SCC 552], and Sandhya Educational Society v. Union of India [(2014) 7 SCC 701].
31. But, what was laid down in Om Prakash Asati was that once a pure question of law is settled by the Court and the same had attained finality, it is not open to one of the parties to re-agitate the same question of law again and again. That case arose out of the procedure adopted by the screening committee of the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam for prematurely retiring its employees. In two earlier decisions, the Court had held that the criteria adopted by the screening committee was illegal. Therefore, the Supreme Court held in para 9 that once a pure question of law is answered in a particular manner and the same had also attained finality, the respondents should accept the same without any further protestation.
32. But in the case on hand, the question as to whether the drivers are entitled to a particular Selection Grade scale of pay and a particular Special Grade scale of pay is not a pure question of law. It is a question of fact, to be culled out from the schedules to the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1989 and 1998. Moreover, the earliest decision of this Court, only based upon which hundreds of writ petitions were subsequently allowed, never discussed or laid down any factual finding that the drivers were entitled to a particular scale of pay in the Selection Grade or Special Grade. Hence, the decision in Om Prakash Asati is of no application.
33. The second decision in Sandhya Educational Society is of no relevance. The said decision dealt with the question relating to the maintainability of a Review Application before the High Court, especially after dismissal of the Special Leave Petition. While dealing with the said question, the Supreme Court pointed out in para 9 that judicial decorum and discipline is paramount and that a coordinate Bench has to respect the judgments and orders passed by another Bench.
34. It is true that consistency helps the parties to a litigation to know where they stand. But, when it is brought to the notice of the Court that on most of the earlier occasions, several similarly placed employees obtained orders at the stage of admission, on the ground that the issue is already covered by a decision of this Court and that it was only in this manner that several employees got a benefit that was not legitimately due to them, the Court cannot shut its eyes and choose to prefer maintenance of discipline rather than upholding public interest.
35. As a matter of fact, the greatness of the Court lies only in its courage and ability to correct its mistakes. Justice is more precious than discipline. This was the principle that the Supreme Court highlighted in A.R.Antulay vs. R.S.Nayak [AIR 1988 SC 1531]. It was observed in the said decision that "in rectifying an error, no personal inhibitions should debar the Court because no person should suffer by reason of any mistake of the Court." The Supreme Court focused on the elementary rule of justice that no party should suffer due to the mistake of the Court. Therefore, this Court should not feel shackled either by the rules of procedure or by the principles of propriety, when it is so glaring that a gross injustice has been done to the State (1) by writ petitions getting allowed at the stage of admission and (2) by getting those orders implemented under threat of contempt. This is especially so when the earliest decision that was followed in all other cases, did not decide the scale of pay to be granted for Selection and Special Grades. Hence, the second contention of the writ petitioners is also liable to be rejected. CONTENTION 3:
36. The third contention of the writ petitioners is that the argument of the State that an illegality cannot be perpetrated, has to be rejected outright, in view of the settled position that what was done by the Court cannot be treated as an illegality.
37. In support of this contention, Mr. R.Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for some of the Writ Petitioners invited our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Maharaj Krishan Bhatt v. State of Jammu and Kashmir 2008 (9) SCC 24. In that case,one person working as a constable got promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector, in relaxation of the rule relating to 50% quota for direct recruitment. Other persons approached the High Court and in respect of one individual, a single Judge allowed the claim. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the Appeal filed by the State. Therefore, that individual was promoted as Sub-Inspector. As a consequence, the Writ Petitions filed by the other individuals were allowed by another Learned Judge. But this decision was reversed by the Division Bench, forcing the individuals to take up the matter to the Supreme Court. When the individual employees pitched their claim on the basis of Articles 14 and 16, the State contended that there could be no equality in illegality. But, the said argument was rejected by the Supreme Court, on the ground that once a Court had granted a benefit, the same cannot be treated as illegal.
38. Paragraphs 21 to 23 of the order read as follows:
"21. It was no doubt contended by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent State that Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution cannot be invoked and pressed into service to perpetuate illegality. It was submitted that if one illegal action is taken, a person whose case is similar, cannot invoke Article 14 or 16 and demand similar relief illegally or against a Statute.
22. There can be no two opinions about the legal proposition as submitted by the learned counsel for the State. But in the case on hand, in our opinion, there was no illegality on the part of the learned Single Judge in allowing Writ Petition No.519 of 1987 instituted by Abdul Rashid Rather and in issuing necessary directions. Since the action was legal and in consonance with law, the Division Bench confirmed it and this Court did not think it proper to interfere with the said order and dismiss the Special Leave Petition. To us, in the circumstances, the learned Single Judge was wholly right and fully justified in following the judgment and order in WP No.519 of 1987 in the case of the present writ petitioners also.
23. In fairness and in view of the fact that the decision in Abdul Rasheed Rather had attained finality, the State authorities ought to have gracefully accepted the decision by granting similar benefits to the present writ petitioners. It, however, challenged the order passed by the Single Judge. The Division Bench of the High Court ought to have dismissed the letters patent appeal by affirming the order of the Single Judge. The letters patent appeal, however, was allowed by the Division Bench and the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge was set aside. In our considered view, the order passed by the learned Single Judge was legal, proper and in furtherance of justice, equity and fairness in action. The said order, therefore, deserves to be restored."
39. But, as seen from paragraph 22 of the report in Maharaj Krishan Bhatt, the Supreme Court factually found that there was no illegality on the part of the learned Judge in allowing the first writ petition W.P.No.519 of 1987. Therefore, in para 22 of the report, the Supreme Court clarified that once an action was found to be legal and in consonance with law, the State cannot argue that it was an illegality that cannot be allowed to be perpetrated.
40. In this case, we have gone through the Government Orders many times, to find out what scale of pay the drivers are entitled to, in the Selection and Special Grades. We are unable to find, however lenient our approach is, that the writ petitioners could legitimately lay a claim for a Selection Grade scale of pay of Rs.5000-8000 and Special Grade scale of pay of Rs.5500-9000. Therefore, what they have claimed and got in most of the previous decisions of this Court is not what they are lawfully entitled to. Once this is clear, it would follow as a natural consequence that the writ petitioners herein want only that illegality to be perpetrated. An illegality will not undergo a metamorphosis and become legal, merely because it received the seal of approval of a Court of law. Therefore, the third contention is also liable to be rejected.
41. In Union of India v. Kartick Chandra Mondal [(2010) (2) SCC 422], the Supreme Court, relying upon its previous decisions in various cases including the one in State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh [(2009) 5 SCC 69], held that Article 14 is a positive concept and that it cannot be enforced in a negative manner. The Court further held that if an illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior Court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a wrong order. Interestingly, the decision of the Supreme Court in Kartick Chandra Mondal was subsequent to the decision in Maharaj Krishan Bhatt and the decision in Maharaj Krishan Bhatt is also referred to in Kartick Chandra Mondal.
42. Therefore, in the result, all the writ petitions filed by the individual employees claiming Selection Grade scale of pay of Rs.5000-8000 and Special Grade pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 are liable to be dismissed. However, there are a few writ petitions such as W.P.Nos.23550 of 2010, 5498 of 2012 and 30616 of 2012, where the employees claim that they are not even granted the admissible Selection Grade and Special Grade scales pay of Rs.4000-6000 and Rs.4300-6000 respectively.
43. Therefore, with a clarification that all the petitioners in the writ petitions and the respondents in the writ appeals are entitled only to a Selection Grade scale of pay of Rs.4000-100-6000 and a Special Grade scale of pay of Rs.4300-100-6000, but not more than that, all the writ petitions filed by the employees are dismissed. All the writ appeals filed either by the State Government or by various Heads of Departments or by various officers of the Government or by various Local Bodies or Boards or Corporations, shall stand allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
Index : Yes/No (V.R.S., J) (T.M., J)
Internet : Yes/No 08.7.2015
gr/kpl
V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J
AND
T.MATHIVANAN,J
gr.
COMMON JUDGMENT IN
W.A.Nos.30616 of 2012, 1888, 1889,
2073, 1605, 1932, 2541, 2069, 1398,
4200, 27977, 29171, 29175, 29352,
of 2013, 44, 45, 1284, 1285, 1505,
1221 and 291, 1037, 1038, 32147
to 32153, of 2014 and W.P.Nos.
29333 of 2003 etc. batch
08.7.2015