Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 3527
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. HARIPARANTHAMAN
G. Shanmugasundaram
Versus
The Secretary to Government Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Secretariat, Chennai & Another
W.P.No.8378 of 2007
Decided On : 07-09-2009
For the Petitioner:Veera Kathiravan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: C.K. Vishnupriya, Additional Government Pleader.
Upon reversion to the parent Department, the employee should be posted to the earlier position or an equivalent post with protected pay. Reversion from a higher post to a lower post should not result in a loss of salary for the employee.
Headnote:
Reversion of Employee - Employment Rights - Tamil Nadu Fisheries Subordinate Service Rules - Rule 2, Rule 5 - The court discussed the reversion of the petitioner from a higher post to a lower post upon the closure of the Tamil Nadu Fisheries Development Corporation Limited. The court emphasized the need to protect the employee's scale of pay and highlighted the entitlement of the petitioner to be posted to the earlier post with pay protection. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to fix the petitioner's pay on par with Foreman (Marine) from the date of his promotion as Senior Mechanic in 1974, with all monetary benefits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of the Tamil Nadu Fisheries Development Corporation Limited, was reverted to a lower post upon the closure of the Corporation. He filed a petition to quash the order and for direction to fix his pay on par with Foreman (Marine) from the date of his promotion as Senior Mechanic in 1974.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner should have been posted to the earlier position or an equivalent post with protected pay upon reversion to the parent Department. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to fix the petitioner's pay on par with Foreman (Marine) from the date of his promotion as Senior Mechanic in 1974, with all monetary benefits.
Issues: Reversion of employee from a higher post to a lower post, entitlement to protected pay, and the obligation of the respondents to consider the petitioner's just demand.
Ratio Decidendi: Upon reversion to the parent Department, the employee should be posted to the earlier position or an equivalent post with protected pay. Reversion from a higher post to a lower post should not result in a loss of salary for the employee.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the respondents were directed to fix the petitioner's pay on par with Foreman (Marine) from the date of his promotion as Senior Mechanic in 1974, with all monetary benefits.
The Original Application in O.A.No.5313 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is the present writ petition.
2. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.
3. The petitioner was appointed as Electrician by an order dated 111. 1970 of the Assistant Director of Fisheries (Fish Meal Plant), Mandapam under Rule 10(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. Later on, he was regularised in the said post. Further, he was promoted as Senior Mechanic (Trawler) by the Director of Fisheries vide his order dated 011. 1974. He was sent on deputation to the Tamil Nadu Fisheries Development Corporation Limited, when the Trawlers were transferred to the said Corporation on 012. 1978. On 011. 1984, he was granted Selection Grade in the post of Senior Mechanic (Trawler). He was promoted to the higher post, namely Junior Engineer, in the Corporation. While so, he was reverted back to the parent Department by an order dated 08.04.1988, pursuant to the closure of the Tamil Nadu Fisheries Development Corporation Limited.
4. On reversion to the parent Department, instead of posting him as Senior Mechanic, the post which he held at the time of deputation, he was posted by an order dated 09.02.1989 to the lower post of Electrician, which admittedly carried lesser scale of pay. He made a representation dated 02.03.1989 to the second respondent to post him as Foreman (Marine), which is equivalent to the post of Senior Mechanic, since the post of Senior Mechanic was not available.
5. The petitioner was in receipt of Rs.1640-2900 scale as Senior Mechanic (Trawler) and on being reverted to the parent Department, he was placed in Rs.825-1200 scale as Electrician.
6. In these circumstances, the petitioner filed Writ petition in W.P.No.1450 of 1989 before this Court contending that he was an employee of the Tamil Nadu Fisheries Development Corporation Limited and that therefore, he should not be reverted to the parent Department. The said writ petition was dismissed on 21.09.1989. Left with no other alternative, he joined duty in the lower post of Electrician on 15.09.1991.
7. While so, the first respondent passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.223, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (FS.II) Department, dated 23.07.1993, relaxing Rule 2 and Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Fisheries Subordinate Service Rules and directed the second respondent to appoint the petitioner as Foreman (Marine) in the Fisheries Department, with effect from the date of issuance of the order by the second respondent appointing him as Foreman (Marine). Based on the said Government Order, the petitioner was appointed as Foreman (Marine) with effect from 110. 1993.
8. The petitioner made a representation dated 07.01.1999 to the first respondent to appoint him as Foreman (Marine) with effect from the date of reversion to the parent Department instead of from 110. 1993. However, his request was declined by the first respondent in the impugned order dated 11.06.2002.
9. The petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.5313 of 2002 (W.P.No.8378 of 2007) to quash the aforesaid order of the first respondent and for consequential direction to the respondents, to fix his pay on par with Foreman (Marine), from the date on which he was posted to the equivalent post of Senior Mechanic in 1974, with all monetary and attendant benefits.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the petitioner was a Senior Mechanic at the time, when he was sent on deputation to the Tamil Nadu Fisheries Development Corporation Limited, on reversion to the parent Department from the Corporation, he should have been posted to the earlier post which he held at the time of deputation. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that if the said post was not available due to the non-availability of the Trawlers, the respondents should have accommodated him in an equivalent
