The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of employees to service benefits based on their total service, and the principle of extending benefits to similarly placed employees in the same department.

JUDGMENT :

Common Prayer: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent pertaining to its order bearing Na.Ka.No.1689/Pa.Aa.4/2020-1, 2020-2, 2020-3, 2020-4 & 2020-7 respectively, dated 11.03.2020 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to extend the benefits of the order of this Court dated 27.08.2019 in W.A.No.2782 of 2012 and grant all attendant service benefits to the petitioners, including the monetary benefits and pensionary benefits.

1. Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions are one and the same, they are disposed of by this common order.

2.1. All the petitioners herein had originally joined the Sericulture Department as Sericulture Demonstrators. In the year 1984, post of Sericulture Demonstrator was merged with the post of Junior Inspector of Sericulture. It is the case of the petitioners that, since the posts of Sericulture Demonstrator and Junior Inspector of Sericulture were merged, the service in both the posts should be counted for the purpose of granting Senior Scale and Selection Scale. However, the respondents had extended the benefit only from the date of the petitioners' becoming Junior Inspector of Sericulture.

2.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, similarly placed persons had earlier approached this Court and in a batch of appeals in W.A.Nos.2782 of 2012..etc., State of Tamil Nadu Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles & Khadi Department vs. M. Anjappa, the Hon'ble Division Bench had considered the benefits extended to similarly placed persons and held that the benefits of the Merger, ought to have been considered for the purpose of pay fixation and grant of Senior Grade and Selection Grade and thereby, extended the pensionary benefits prospectively.

2.3. One of the aggrieved Junior Inspector of Sericulture had challenged the action of the respondents and this Court, in its order dated 01.07.2008 passed in W.P.No.28492 of 2006, had allowed the writ petition. The Writ Appeal No.1398 of 2008, against this order, was also dismissed on 21.04.2009, by observing that the petitioners were entitled for the benefits, since similarly placed persons have also been extended the benefit.

2.4. When the petitioners had earlier given representations seeking for grant of Selection Grade in the post of Junior Inspectors by taking into account their total service from the petitioner's initial date of appointment as Sericulture Demonstrators, in the light of the orders passed in W.A.No.2782 of 2012.. etc (batch of cases), this Court had directed the concerned respondents to consider the representations within a stipulated period. However, through the impugned order dated 11.03.2020, the petitioners' claim was rejected on the ground that the order in W.A.No.2782 of 2012.. etc (batch of cases), would apply only to the petitioners therein and not to these petitioners and further reliance was placed on G.O.Ms.No.898 Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department (P. & A.R.) dated 23.09.1983 and thereby the petitioners' request was denied.

3. The Hon'ble Division Bench in M. Anjappa's case (cited supra) had already addressed the issue involved in the present case and by taking into account all similarly placed persons, who were extended the benefit, the Hon'ble Division Bench had granted similar reliefs to the petitioners therein. The relevant portion of the order reads thus:

“10.5. Yet another submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents is that there should be an element of fairness insofar as the appellants are concerned. Now all the respondents have reached the age of superannuation. Therefore, this Court can exercise its discretion and mould the relief accordingly.

10.6. Any discretion is to be within the ambit of law. When law is pitted against the equity, it has to prevail. Though they can travel on the same channel, their waters do not