SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Mad) 2633

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. VAIDYANATHAN, R. VIJAYAKUMAR, JJ.
The Secretary to Government Home Department, Chennai & Others – Appellant
Versus
B. Amaravathi (Widow) & Others – Respondent
W.A.Nos. 2088 & 2043 of 2021, W.P.Nos. 21901 & 22226 of 2019, 13308 & 13324 of 2020 & CMP.Nos. 13215 & 12985 of 2021 & WMP.Nos. 21115 & 21509 of 2019 & 16447, 16449 & 16463 of 2020
Decided On : 20-12-2021

Advocate Appeared:
R. Neelakandan, Additional Advocate General Assisted by K. Tippu Sultan, Government Advocate, G. M/s. Bala & Daisy, M/s. Ravi Anantha Padmanaban, L.P. Maurya, M/s.OM Sairam, K. Ravi Anantha Padmanaban, Advocates, R. Neelakandan, Additional Advocate General Assisted by K. Tippu Sultan, Government Advocate.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 and 39 - Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 - Posts of Sweepers in Police Department - Scale of pay - Appointment order - Regularization - Whether writ petitioners should be treated on par with Sweepers/Scavengers working in regular vacancies in same department and also on par with scavengers working in Education Department with regard to parity of pay scale - Appointment order of writ petitioners clearly indicated that their appointments are purely temporary until the same is regularised by Government. The writ petitioners were issued order of regularization on various dates and granted regularization from the date of their original appointments - Probation period was also declared by District Level Authorities on various dates - Held, The recruitment process between the subject post and reference post are completely different. Hence, the writ petitioners will not be entitled to claim pay parity on par with employees appointed to the regulars posts - A person would have had the benefit of award of Labour Court / Tribunal, Authority under Shops Act and the like and he cannot be simply deprived equal pay for equal work, citing the said judgment. Further, yet situation may arise, wherein provisions of Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 may be applicable and the persons would not have been directly recruited following due procedures, but would have been absorbed pursuant to completion of 480 days of continuous service in a period of 24 calendar months against sanctioned posts. In that context, they are deemed to have attained permanent status and at that stage, the adoption of a different yardstick on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court with regard to the extension of pay scale may not be correct - Writ petitions dismissed.

JUDGMENT :-

S. Vaidyanathan, & Rvijayakumar, JJ.

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order, dated 16.10.2019 made in W.P.No.29547 of 2019 and allow this writ appeal.)

The respondents in the writ petitions are the appellants herein.

2. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.400 Home (Police XV) Department dated 07.06.2012 sanctioning 558 additional posts of Sweepers in the Police Department. As per the said G.O., a special time scale of pay of Rs.1300-3000+ Grade Pay of Rs.300/- would be paid to the appointed Sweepers. Further, it was stated that the 558 additional posts are sanctioned by surrendering the existing 219 regular posts of Sweepers in the Police Department. Pursuant to the said Government Order, the writ petitioners were appointed in the special time scale of pay. The appointment order of the writ petitioners clearly indicated that their appointments are purely temporary until the same is regularised by the Government. The writ petitioners were issued the order of regularization on various dates and granted regularization from the date of their original appointments. The probation period was also declared by the District Level Authorities on various dates.

3. In the Education Department, the Scavengers were appointed under a special time scale of Rs.1300-3000+ Grade Pay of Rs.300/- based on G.O.(Ms).No.47, School Education (R.1) Department, dated 02.03.2012. The Scavengers challenged the offending portion of the Government Order that fixed a special time scale of pay for them instead of regular time scale of pay ie. Rs.4800-10,000/- + Grade Pay of Rs.1300/-. This writ petition was numbered as W.P.(MD)No.17663 of 2014 and the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court allowed the writ petition by striking down the offending clause in the said G.O as un-sustainable. The learned Single Judge directed to place the Scavengers on par with other Scavengers already working in the Education Department by paying regular time scale of pay of Rs.4800-10000/-+ Grade Pay of Rs.1300/-. This order of the learned Single Judge was challenged in W.A.(MD).No.1584 of 2018. The Hon'ble Division Bench relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2017 (1) SCC 148 (in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others) and 2018 (14) Scale 765 (in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube Vs. Divisional Forest Officer and others) and dismissed the writ appeal on the ground that the payment of different time scale of pay for similar work, violates the principle of 'Equal Pay for Equal work'. This order of the Division Bench was implemented by the Education Department by issuing G.O(Ms).No.50, dated 08.03.2019.

4. Taking Precedent from the order of the Division Bench and implementation of the same by the Education Department, the writ petitioners who are working as Sweepers in the Police Department sent representations to the appellants herein requesting them to be treated on par with Scavengers in the Education Department. The writ petitioners further requested that their time scale of pay may be fixed on par with Scavengers in the Education Department. Since the said request was not responded, the writ petitioners filed the present batch of writ petitions.

5. The writ petitioners contended that G.O.Ms.No.400 Home (Police XV) Department, dated 07.06.2012 is in violation of Article 14 and 39 of the Constitution of India. They further contended that they fall within the category of Clause-D employees and there cannot be any discrimination between the Scavengers in one department and the Scavengers in other departments. They further contended that the Sweepers and Scavengers fall within Clause-IV of Tamil Nadu Basic Service Rules and hence, there cannot be any differential time scale of pay between the same Clause of employees. The writ petitioners further contended that the Scavengers working in the Education Department are similarly placed persons. The duties and responsibilities are

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top