Madras High Court
Tamil Nadu Water Supply And Drainage vs T.Jeyasingh on 27 June, 2008
Author: G.Rajasuria
Bench: M.Chockalingam, G.Rajasuria
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 27.06.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA W.A.NO.824 OF 2005 AND W.A.M.P.NO.1567 OF 2005 1.Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, rep. by its Managing Director, No.31, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. 2.The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Mechanical Division, Madurai-625 002. 3.The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Mechanical Division, Coimbatore-641 029. 4.The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Mechanical Division, Trichy-620 001. .. Appellants Vs. 1.T.Jeyasingh 2.A.Singarayan 3.P.Subbiah 4.N.Velmurugan 5.C.Sudalaimuthu 6.T.Natarajan 7.J.Pavul Sebastian 8.P.Sankaravelu 9.H.Raman 10.C.Sukumran 11.V.Alagarsami 12.Y.Ebenazer 13.T.Ramachandran 14.S.Paraman 15.P.Balasubramanian 16.C.Unnikrishnan 17.C.Paramasivan 18.R.Govindarajan 19.M.Thandapani 20.T.Ramachandran 21.S.Mangaleswaran 22.R.Yagappan 23.S.Kalimuthu 24.M.Sethupandian 25.M.V.Subramanian 26.S.Panneerselvam 27.P.Ayyanar 28.L.Muthusamy 29.A.Sengodan 30.T.John Louis 31.J.George 32.A.Ramaraj 33.P.Gopalakrishnan 34.K.Sengodan 35.P.Nagarajan 36.B.Ramasamy 37.A.Thangavelu 38.P.Natarajan 39.S.Sudhakaran 40.R.Rajamanickam 41.R.Rengasamy .. Respondents This writ appeal has been preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 10.11.2003 made in W.P.No.4370 of 2000. For Appellants : Mr.Sudharshanasundar For Respondents : Mr.Hariparanthaman for Mr.M.Muthupandian for RR1 to 10, 12 to 14 - - - - JUDGMENT
(The judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Challenge is made to an order of the learned Single Judge made in W.P.No.4370 of 2000, whereby the order of the first respondent in the writ petition in B.P.Ms.No.97, dated 4.10.1999 and the consequential orders passed by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents, dated 30.11.1999, 30.10.1999 and 25.10.1999 respectively, reverting the petitioners from the re-designated post of Assistant Drillers to Helpers (Rig) and reducing the scale of pay with effect from 2.1.1998 and apart from ordering the recovery of difference amount paid from 2.1.1998, were sought to be quashed.
2.The Court heard the learned counsel on either side. The grounds on which the order is challenged are looked into. The case of the respondents herein/writ petitioners in short was that these 41 petitioners were employed as Helpers (Rig) in the first respondent Board. It is admitted that in 1986, required qualification came to be prescribed by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.136 MA & WS Department, dated 28.01.1986. B.P.Ms.No.113 was issued in the year 1987 by the first respondent, whereby exemption of technical qualification and maximum age limit in respect of 78 Helpers, including the petitioners was granted. It is also an admitted position that there were posts of Assistant Drillers and Drillers in the first respondent Board and that the qualification for the post of Assistant Driller was also the possession of I.T.I. apart from 8th standard. In order to improve the service conditions of various posts in the first respondent Board, initially One Man Committee, headed by a Deputy Secretary to the Government (Finance Department), was appointed and subsequently, it was entrusted to the Finance Director to make a study and forward a report. As per the report submitted by him on 22.7.1997, improvement of service conditions of 7 categories of employees, including that of Helpers and Rig Helpers was considered and placed, pursuant to which B.P.Ms.No.547 dated 4.12.1997 came to be issued. Para 3 of the said B.P. reads as follow:
"3.Helpers/Rig Helpers: The Board hereby orders that the post of Rig Helper be redesignated as Assistant Driller with the scale of pay of Rs.950-1500 and the present incumbents holding the part of Rig Helpers with the I.T.I. qualification be accommodated in the redesignated post. For the Rig Helpers who do not possess I.T.I. qualifications, relevant regulations prescribing the educational qualification may be relaxed in their favour and they may be accommodated in the redesignated part from the date of utilisation of the redesignated posts."
After the passing of the above B.P.Ms.No.547, all the Rig Helpers were redesignated as Assistant Drillers. Thereafter, the present B.P.Ms.No.97, dated 4.10.1999 came to be issued, in which it was stated in Resolution Nos.5 and 6 that the first respondent rejected the proposal of relaxation of holding of I.T.I. qualification for the post of Assistant Driller in respect of existing Rig Helper and that consequent to the said B.P., the other impugned proceedings, dated 30.11.1999, 20.10.1999 and 25.10.1999 came to be issued. Under these circumstances, an order of recovery of excess payment made to the petitioners was made. All the above circumstances led the petitioners to approach the court way of the writ petition.
3.After hearing both sides and considering the materials available, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learned counsel would submit that it is true, there was exemption made in B.P.Ms.No.113 dated 7.4.1987, but it was with reference to the post, namely Helper alone and hence it cannot be applied either at all times or to the posts of Assistant Drillers, which was admittedly higher in rank; that the possession of qualification of I.T.I. was must; that even in B.P.No.97, it was made clear that re-designation of Helpers as Assistant Drillers was available to the persons, who have actually passed I.T.I., but not to all. According to the learned counsel, even as per B.P.Ms.No.547, re-designation of the respondents as Assistant Drillers was subject to the condition that if relaxation of their qualification was made and hence the first respondent has rightly decided not to grant relaxation and that the decision to revert back the respondents herein to the post of Rig Helpers cannot be found fault with.
5.In answer to the above, the learned counsel for the respondents/petitioners in the writ petition, in short, would submit that it is true, all the respondents were originally Rig Helpers; that by B.P. of the year 1987, referred to above, exemption was granted; that by applying the exemption, they were re-designated as Assistant Drillers, which is also the higher post; that once exemption was originally made, by which they were all re-designated as Assistant Drillers, though the post was higher, it was to ensure the benefits to the employees. Once such an exemption was granted to the lower posts from passing the required tests and when the very same tests were to be passed for the immediate higher posts, the exemption granted in favour of the employees should not be taken away, depriving the benefit of the same and that the learned counsel made reliance of the decision reported in 1982 MLJ 294 (The Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowment Department, Madras-9 and another Vs. M.N.Raghunathan); that apart from that after exemption was given to them, by which re-designation was ordered and they have been serving so, getting salary for the post and later depriving the same, there was no justification for making such reversion of the said post and under these circumstances, the order of the learned Single Judge has got to be sustained.
6.The Court has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. Admittedly, the respondents herein were originally employed as Helpers (Rig) in the first respondent Board. By making B.P.No.13, dated 7.4.1987, exemption of technical qualification and maximum age limit in respect of 78 Helpers, including the respondents herein, was actually granted. There were posts of Assistant Drillers and Drillers in the first respondent Board and qualification for the posts of Assistant Drillers was also the possession of I.T.I. apart from 8th standard. It is also not in controversy that Rig Helpers is in lower rank and the Assistant Drillers is higher in rank. By B.P.No.113, this Rig Helpers was actually re-designated and by applying the exemption, they all came to the post of Assistant Drillers and hence it would be quite clear that now after making re-designation and being employed as Assistant Drillers by applying the exemption and they were all being paid by B.P.No.547, dated 04.12.1997, there cannot be any justification for reverting the said post or ordering for withdrawal of salary.
7.Now the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellants is that even without challenging B.P.No.547, the present B.P.No.97 cannot be challenged. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that the respondents herein, who were the Rig Helpers by applying the exemption were regularised and re-designated as Assistant Drillers, though the post is higher in rank and that they were all benefited by that exemption and they were enjoying the same. While the matter stood thus, there is no question M.CHOCKALINGAM, J. AND G.RAJASURIA, J.
vvk of taking away the exemption originally granted. The learned Single Judge has applied number of decisions to the effect that when exemption was granted and they were actually the higher posts, no question of withdrawing the exemption would arise and the same would be detrimental to the interest of the employee. This Court is unable to see any infirmity or illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge. Under these circumstances, this writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected WAMP is also dismissed.
(M.C., J.) (G.R., J.) 27.06.2008 Index : Yes Internet : Yes vvk W.A.NO.824 OF 2005