Markandey Katju, C.J.: This writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 8.10.2003.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

3. The writ petition was filed by an Association of Graduate Engineers in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The dispute is between the Graduate Engineers on the one hand, and the diploma holders, who were appointed as Technical Assistants and Junior Engineers Gr.II, and who can subsequently be promoted as Assistant Engineers if they acquire B.E. Degree or A.M.I.E. through part time course or correspondence studies by internal selection, on the other. It is alleged in para.2 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the directly recruited Assistant Engineers are seniors, and they were all along drawing a higher pay than the internally selected Assistant Engineers, who are their juniors, in every wage revision. However, now some of the internally selected juniors are getting more pay than the directly recruited Assistant Engineers, who are seniors, and this has happened on account of the wage revision w.e.f., 1.12.1996 providing grant of additional increments on the basis of the number of years service put in the department under Clause 6(4) of the Board’s Proceedings in (Permanent) B.P.(FB) No.59 (Secretariat Branch), dated 18.7.1998. It is alleged that many such directly recruited Assistant Engineers, who are seniors both in the cadre of Assistant Engineers as well as Assistant Executive Engineers are now being given lesser pay than their juniors who were subordinate to them earlier. It is further alleged that the representations of the petitioners have been rejected, and hence the writ petition.

4. In para.4 of the petitioner’s affidavit several details are given alleging that seniors are now being given less salary than juniors. It is alleged that this violates Art.14 of the Constitution of India.

5. A counter affidavit was filed in the writ petition by the respondents. In para.3 of the same it is alleged that the internal selection is resorted to not only for the post of Assistant Engineers category but also categories such as Junior Assistant, Typist, Steno Typist, Assessor and Technical Assistant, etc. In all these cases the period of service rendered in previous posts is counted for pension in the new post, and the pay drawn in the previous post is protected in the new post. Such internally selected persons by virtue of their earlier service in the Board draw more pay than the directly recruited employees, as their pay has been protected. It is alleged that this is not an anomaly in any real sense. It is further alleged that the pay protection is the benefit consciously allowed by the Board to its workmen, who were recruited from other posts through internal selection, and this is governed by the orders issued in (Per) B.P. (F.B.) No.95, (Secretariat Branch), dated 2.11.1985 covering all the employees of the Board.

6. In para.5 of the counter affidavit it is averred that when workmen were recruited to another post internally, there were occasions, at the time of their appointment, when such internally selected and appointed persons were drawing higher pay in the previous post itself than the minimum scale of pay applicable for the post to which that person was appointed through such internal selection, and in all such cases their pay in the previous post was protected in the new post. The position in the Government of India and in the Government of Tamil Nadu service is similar.

7. In para.6 of the counter affidavit it is alleged that in the 1996 Wage Revision Orders, it was ordered that a benefit of one increment for the first 7 years of regular completed service, and thereafter, one increment for every 10 years of service, as service weightage shall be given after fitment in the new scale of pay. By virtue of this provision the employees with longer years of service get more number of increments as service weightage benefit th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document