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

2022 Supreme(Mad) 1966

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Muthuraman & Others - Appellant
Versus
The District Collector, Perambalur - Respondent
W.P. No. 4322 of 2014
Decided On : 14-06-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners:I. Kabilan, M. Ravi, Advocates. For the Respondent: M. Bindran, Additional Government Pleader.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioners were not entitled to claim any further benefits as per the government order, as the said benefits were already implemented by the respondent during the relevant point of time.

Headnote:

Special Grade - Driver - The court considered the entitlement of the petitioners, who were drivers, for special grade scale of pay as per the Tamil Nadu Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 1998. The court analyzed the government orders and subsequent revisions in pay scales to determine the petitioners' eligibility for the special grade. The court found that the petitioners were not entitled to claim any further benefits as per the government order, as the said benefits were already implemented by the respondent during the relevant point of time.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, who were drivers, sought the grant of special grade scale of pay as per the Tamil Nadu Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 1998, but their claim was rejected by the respondent.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners were not entitled to claim any further benefits as per the government order, as the said benefits were already implemented by the respondent during the relevant point of time. The court disposed of the writ petition with no order as to costs.

Issues: The main issue was the entitlement of the petitioners, who were drivers, for special grade scale of pay as per the Tamil Nadu Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 1998.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners were not entitled to claim any further benefits as per the government order, as the said benefits were already implemented by the respondent during the relevant point of time.

Final Decision: The writ petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the respondent relating to his order in Pro.Rc.No.3577/2013/PA.6 dated 05.07.2013, to quash and quash the same and to consequential directions to the rspondent to implement the Ordinary / Selection Grades Scales of Pay in the case of the petitioners as indicated in Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Pay Scales Rules 1998 at Rs.4,000–6,000 and Rs.5,000–8,000 from the respective dates of their initial appointment and from the date of completion of ten years of service in the Ordinary Grade respectively and disburse the consequential monetary benefits.)

The order impugned rejecting the claim of the petitioners for grant of Special Grade in the category of Driver, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioners are Drivers from the Office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Sub-Division, Block Development Office, Union Office, Mahalir Thittam Collectorate Project Officer, Rural Development and Panchayat Office, Perambalur.

3. The grievances of the petitioners are that the enhanced selection grade scale of pay as indicated in Schedule-II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 1998, with all consequential monetary benefits were not granted and hence, the petitioners have submitted a representation to the Authority concerned, who in turn rejected the case. Thus, the petitioners are constrained to move the present writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that as per G.O.Ms.No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 13.04.1998, the petitioners are entitled for selection grade scale of pay and special grade scale of pay, as there is no avenue for promotion to the post of Driver. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners are entitled for special grade for Rs.5,500-9,000. In view of the fact that the claim of the petitioners in accordance with Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.162, dated 13.04.1998, was not granted, they have chosen to file the present writ petition.

5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners by stating that the case of petitioners was not considered for grant of selection grade in accordance with the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.162, dated 13.04.1998. Subsequently, as per Tamil Nadu Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 2009, issued in G.O.Ms.No.234, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 01.06.2009, the revision was effected in favour of the petitioners.

6. Admittedly, there is no promotional avenue for the post of Driver and therefore, the petitioners are eligible for the benefit of selection grade and special grade as indicated in the Government Order. As per Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 1998 notified in G.O.Ms.No.162, dated 13.04.1998, in respect of ordinary grade scale of pay of Rs.3,200-85-6,900 corresponding selection grade scale of pay of Rs.4,000-100-6,000. The petitioners had completed their 10 years of service and accordingly awarded selection grade on or before 31.05.2009. The selection grade pay was fixed as per Schedule-II of G.O.Ms.No.162, dated 13.04.1998. However, the petitioners have completed their 10 years of service, moved to the selection grade after 31.05.2009 and selection grade pay has been fixed to them by granting 6% benefit as per G.O.Ms.No.234, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 01.06.2009 and G.O.Ms.No.237, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 22.07.2013.

7. In view of the fact that further benefits were also extended to the petitioners in the revised Tamil Nadu Scale of Pay Rules, 2009 and their pay was fixed in accordance with the revised Revised Scale of Pay Rules, there is no reason to grant further revision or any other benefits in accordance with the Government

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