Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 1715
High Court of Judicature at Madras
V. DHANAPALAN
K. Muthu & Another
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government Chennai & Others
W.P. Nos. 28785 of 2004 & 6713 of 2007 & M.P. Nos.1 & 2 of 2007
Decided on : 28-03-2011
For the Petitioners:S. Silambanan, Senior Counsel. For the Respondents: R1 to R3 - S. Gopinathan, Additional Government Pleader, R4 - No appearance.
The fixation of scales of pay is an executive function, and the court cannot act as an executive authority to fix the pay scales. The court also highlighted that recovery of excess payment is not allowed unless it was made on account of misrepresentation or fraud.
Headnote:
Time Keeper - Employment Dispute - G.O.Ms.No.1111, G.O.Ms.No.731 - The court discussed the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.1111 dated 4.5.1985 and G.O.Ms.No.731 dated 29.8.1994, which framed adhoc rules and revised pay scales for certain posts including the post of Time keeper in the Police Transport Workshop. The court highlighted the redesignation of the post and the recommendation for amendment to special rules governing the regrouped categories. The court also emphasized the rejection of the recommendation by the Home Department and the issue of recovery of excess payment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought writs of certiorarified mandamus to quash the orders of the 4th respondent and direct the payment of retirement benefits. The petitioners were time keepers in the Police Transport Workshop and faced issues related to redesignation, pay scales, and recovery of excess payment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the post of Time Keeper was redesignated as Fitter Grade-I with revised pay scales. The court noted the rejection of the recommendation for amendment to special rules and the issue of recovery of excess payment. The court emphasized that the fixation of scales of pay is an executive function and that the petitioners could submit their representation to the Government for consideration.
Issues: The issues involved the redesignation of the post, applicability of adhoc rules and revised pay scales, rejection of the recommendation for amendment, and the recovery of excess payment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the fixation of scales of pay is an executive function and that the petitioners could submit their representation to the Government for consideration. The court also ruled that the portion of the impugned order ordering the recovery of the excess amount paid to the petitioners could not be sustained.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were disposed of, and the court quashed the orders for the recovery of the excess amount paid to the petitioners. The court allowed the petitioners to submit their representation to the Government for consideration.
1. Heard Mr.S.Silambanan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.S.Gopinathan, learned Additional Government Pleader for Respondents 1 to 3.
2. Prayer in W.P.No.287685 of 2004 is for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the fourth respondent made in his proceedings C.No.B/4853/2003/O.O.No. 62/2003 dated 22.11.2003 and his consequential order made in B/4853/2003/O/O 10/2004 dated 21.1.2004, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to pay all retirement benefits to the petitioner.
3. Prayer in W.P.No.6713 of 2007 is for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the fourth respondent made in his proceedings C.No.B/469/2007/O.O.No.5/2007 dated 6.2.2007, quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents from reducing the scale of pay of the petitioner which he was receiving prior to the impugned order and pay the consequential pay revision.
4. Since the common issues had arisen for consideration in these writ petitions, they are disposed of by this common order.
5. The petitioner in W.P.No.28785/2004 joined in the services of the 4th Respondent in the year 1976 as Time Keeper Police in temporary basis and has an unblemishless record. The petitioner in W.P.No.6713 of 2007 joined in the services of the 4th Respondent on 4.7.1980 as Time Keeper in temporary basis and has an unblemishless record.
6. The post held by the petitioners herein is a non-promotional post at the time of their joining. There is no specific rules governing the service conditions of the employees for the post of Technical Assistant, Foreman, Time keeper etc., in the Armed Forces at the relevant point of time. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.1111 dated 4.5.1985 wherein the adhoc rules were framed and the same was applicable to the post of time keeper as per the notification issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.731 dated 29.8.1994, after the recommendation of V Pay Commission wherein the pay scales of certain posts including the post of Time keeper in the Police Transport Workshop were revised. The Government had examined the question of rationalizing the pay scales of the posts in certain departments including the Police Transport Workshop in consultation with the Works Manager, Police Transport Workshop etc., and accordingly, the Works Manager Police Transport Workshop has submitted the revision of cadre structure as in Motor Vehicles Department and State Health Transport Department with revision in the pay scales of certain posts and accordingly revised the scales of pay.
7. The post held by the petitioners was redesignated as Fitter Grade-I and revised scale of pay was fixed at Rs.1,100-1,660/- vide 4th Respondent's workshop order dated 15.11.1994. However, the petitioners were always been classified only as time keeper and not as Fitter Grade I and in fact no promotion opportunities were given to the petitioners nor any of the other time keepers working in the department. On the other hand promotions were given only to the Industrial Category persons. The petitioners have been serving for more than 25 years without any promotion as there was no possibility of promotion. Hence, the concession given by the 6th pay commission to those of the posts which did not have promotion opportunities was also extended to the petitioner and others similarly placed.
8. In fact the Secretary to Government in G.O.Ms.No.731 had also noted that the Works Manager, Police Transport Workshop to send amendment to the special rules governing the regrouped categories. The Automobile Engineer has also suggested such recommendations by his letters dated 4.12.2001, 0/7/2002, 12.8.2002 and 27.6.2003 and also seeking clarifications whether the time scale fixed in so far as the petitioners are concerned is correct or not.
9. The 4th Respondent Works Manager, Police Transport Workshops, Chennai was directed
