Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 3456
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JAICHANDREN
M. Murugavel
Versus
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Salem & Another
Writ Petition No.4302 of 2001
Decided on : 19-09-2008
For the Petitioner:Karthik Rajan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: T. Seenivasan, Additional Government Pleader.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the eligibility for re-designation under the Service Rules and the requirement of prior notice before reversion.
Headnote:
Work Inspector - Employment Dispute - Tamilnadu Municipal Corporations Engineering and Water Supply Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 - Rule-3, G.O.Ms.No.237 - The judgment discusses the re-designation of the post of Work Inspector as Skilled Assistant Grade-I, the eligibility for such re-designation, and the requirement of prior notice before reversion. It highlights the interpretation of the Service Rules and the principles of natural justice in reaching the decision to set aside the impugned order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a diploma holder in Civil Engineering, was appointed as a Work Inspector in the Salem Municipality, which was later upgraded as a Corporation. He was subsequently re-designated as a Skilled Assistant Grade-I. The first respondent later issued an order reverting the petitioner to Skilled Assistant Grade-II, which the petitioner challenged.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the re-designation of the petitioner as Skilled Assistant Grade-I was in accordance with the Service Rules and that the petitioner was eligible for such re-designation. However, the court held that the petitioner should have been issued a prior notice before the reversion order was passed. Therefore, the court set aside the impugned order.
Issues: The issues revolved around the re-designation of the petitioner from Work Inspector to Skilled Assistant Grade-I, the eligibility for such re-designation, and the requirement of prior notice before reversion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was eligible for re-designation as Skilled Assistant Grade-I and that the reversion order should have been preceded by a prior notice to the petitioner.
Final Decision: The writ petition stands allowed, and the impugned order reverting the petitioner to Skilled Assistant Grade-II is set aside.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner had stated that he is a diploma holder in Civil Engineering and has completed the course in the year 1986. He belongs to a Most Backward Community. He was sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the post of Work Inspector in the Salem Municipality, in the year 1991, which was later upgraded as a Corporation in the year 1994. The petitioner was appointed as a work Inspector, on 91. The basic qualification for being appointed in the said post is a Diploma in Civil Engineering. Later, the petitioner was ousted from the post of the Work Inspector, on 28. 92. The petitioner had filed an application before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.5743 of 1992. By an order, dated 6. 94, the Tribunal had directed the appointment of the petitioner as a work inspector in the Salem Municipality, either in the existing vacancy or in the future vacancies. Based on the directions issued by the Tribunal, the second respondent had issued an order, in G.O.Ms.No.107, Department of Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 23. 96 to appoint the petitioner in the post of Work Inspector. Accordingly, the first respondent had appointed the petitioner in the existing vacancy of Work Inspector, on 37. 97, and as such the petitioner has been continuing in service till the date of the filing of the writ petition.
3. According to the service rules approved and published in G.O.Ms.No.237, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 29. 96, which had come into existence on 10. 96, the post of Work Inspector had been grouped with identical posts, and re-designated as Skilled Assistant Grade-I in the scale of pay of Rs.3625-4900, as against the previous pay scale of Rs.1100-25-1150-30-1660. The petitioners probation in the said post had been satisfactorily completed and the first respondent in his proceedings No.K10/4646/2000, dated 10. 2000, had declared the completion of the probation by the petitioner. The first respondent had also sanctioned the periodical annual increments to the petitioner till the year 2000. The first respondent had also fixed the seniority of the petitioner in the category of Skilled Assistant Grade-I, in his proceedings No.C3/2857/99, dated 7. 99. It has been further stated that the first respondent had passed the impugned proceedings No.C3/5773/98, dated 22. 2001, reverting the petitioner as Skilled Assistant Grade-II. The impugned proceedings of the first respondent is arbirary, contrary to the rules applicable to the petitioners service, illegal and void. Therefore, the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 22. 2001, is liable to be set aside.
4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, it has been stated that as per the service rules, the post of Works Inspector cannot be grouped as Skilled Assistant Grade-I as the petitioner should be absorbed in the entry level post as Skilled Assistant Grade-II. The petitioner had joined in the service of the first respondent Corporation only on 37. 97, after the publication of the Service Rules. The petitioner had completed his probation period of two years on 10. 2000. The petitioners increments were sanctioned in accordance with the Service Rules. The proceedings No.C3/2857/99, dated 7. 99, had been issued by oversight, without going through the relevant Service Rules. Therefore, the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 22. 2001, in proceedings NO.C3/5773/98, is in accordance with the Service Rules of the Corporation.
5. It has been further stated that the order of the first respondent, dated 22. 2001, is correct and there is no violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not reverted to a lower post. Only his seniority has been re-arranged as per the Service Rules. The proceedings issued is only in respect of revision of seniority after considering the
