Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
M.K. Udaya Kumar & Others - Appellant
Versus
The Government of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P. Nos. 22090 & 22091 of 2014 & M.P. No. 1 of 2015 & W.M.P. Nos. 34512 of 2017 & 31340 of 2018
Decided On : 26-07-2022
Writ Petition - Pay Scale Fixation - G.O.Ms.No.123, dated 28.02.2011, G.O.Ms.No.511, Finance (Pay-Cell) Department, dated 01.08.1992 - The court directed the respondents to re-fix the petitioners' pay scale and disburse the difference in the scale of pay from the date of their initial appointment. The petitioners were appointed as Plumber, Lift Attender, Wireman Grade-I, Gas Maker, and Electrician Grade-II. The court found that the petitioners were stagnated in the same post for more than 30 years without any opportunity for promotion. The court considered the III Pay Commission recommendations and observed that the error in fixation of pay is to be corrected right from the III Pay Commission fixation and further, the petitioners are to be promoted to the higher post, based on their eligibility. The court also emphasized that whenever a promotional post carries a lesser scale of pay, then the Selection Grade Pay in the promotional post is to be granted to the employees, as per the Government Orders in force. The court rejected the petitioners' claim for promotion as a matter of right but emphasized that consideration of promotion is a right under employment. The court disposed of the Writ Petitions with no costs.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a Writ of Mandamus to re-fix their pay scale and disburse the difference in the scale of pay from the date of their initial appointment. The petitioners were appointed as Plumber, Lift Attender, Wireman Grade-I, Gas Maker, and Electrician Grade-II and were stagnated in the same post for more than 30 years without any opportunity for promotion. The petitioners claimed that the error in fixation of pay occurred from the III Pay Commission and sought correction of the pay scale and promotion to higher posts based on their eligibility.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were stagnated in the same post for more than 30 years without any opportunity for promotion. The court considered the III Pay Commission recommendations and observed that the error in fixation of pay is to be corrected right from the III Pay Commission fixation and further, the petitioners are to be promoted to the higher post, based on their eligibility. The court also emphasized that whenever a promotional post carries a lesser scale of pay, then the Selection Grade Pay in the promotional post is to be granted to the employees, as per the Government Orders in force. The court rejected the petitioners' claim for promotion as a matter of right but emphasized that consideration of promotion is a right under employment.
Issues: The main issue was the correction of the error in fixation of pay from the III Pay Commission and the promotion of the petitioners to higher posts based on their eligibility. The court also addressed the claim for promotion as a matter of right and the consideration of promotion as a right under employment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the error in fixation of pay is to be corrected right from the III Pay Commission fixation and the petitioners are to be promoted to the higher post, based on their eligibility. The court also emphasized that whenever a promotional post carries a lesser scale of pay, then the Selection Grade Pay in the promotional post is to be granted to the employees, as per the Government Orders in force. The court rejected the petitioners' claim for promotion as a matter of right but emphasized that consideration of promotion is a right under employment.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the Writ Petitions with no costs.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents especially the 2nd & 3rd Respondents to re-fix the petitioners pay scale eligible to Grade-II category trade posts, viz: 'Plumbers' (1st & 2nd Petitioners) 'Lift Attender', 'Wireman Grade-I', 'Lift Attender' & 'Gas Marker' in particular, rectifying the error occurred commencing from the starting pay and also in the light of revision made in the identical trade post 'Refrigeration Mechanic' from Rs.610-1075 to Rs.1350-2200 holding the pre-revised scale of pay at Rs.780-1385 apart from re-designating the respective posts as Grade-I trade posts, disbursing the difference in the pay-scale from the date of the respective initial appointments as done in the case of 'Mechanic' Trade-Post in the Industrial, Electrical & Electronics Wing as well as Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department by issuing G.O.Ms. No.123, dated 28.02.2011 apart from promoting the petitioners as 'Charge Man', or 'Supervisor' or 'Junior Engineer' on par with their juniors and also in the light of concomitant promotions made to the post, 'Craftsman' with higher pay-scale apart from framing Adhoc Rules in G.O.Ms.No.51, Health & Family Welfare Department, dated 07.02.2011, making the petitioners eligible to draw the monetary and service benefits by duly considering the recent representations dated 07.05.2014 & 10.02.2014.)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents especially the 2nd & 3rd Respondents to re-fix the petitioner's pay scale eligible to Grade-II category trade posts, viz: 'Electrician Grade-II' in particular, rectifying the error occurred commencing from the starting pay as revised in the identical trade post 'Refrigeration Mechanic' from Rs.610-1075 to Rs.1350-2200 holding the pre-revised scale of pay at Rs.780-1385 apart from re-designating the post as 'Electrician Grade-I' disbursing the difference in the pay-scale from the date of the petitioner's initial appointment as done in the identical circumstances, viz: Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department by issuing G.O.Ms. No.123, dated 28.02.2011 apart from enforcing G.O.Ms.No.511, Finance (Pay-Cell) Department, dated 01.08.1992 not only for relaxation of academic qualifications, but for the fixation of Rs.1100-1660 to Grade-I trade posts, besides issuing paper order for promotion as 'Charge Man' or 'Supervisor' or 'Junior Engineer' on par with the petitioner's juniors and also in the light of concomitant promotions made to the post, 'Craftsman' with higher pay-scale apart from framing Adhoc Rules in G.O.Ms.No.51, Health & Family Welfare Department, dated 07.02.2011, making the petitioner eligible to draw not only the difference in monetary benefits, but stepping up of his last drawn scale for the actual drawal of Pensional benefits duly considering last representation 22.02.2010.)
Common Order
1. The relief sought for in the present Writ Petitions is to direct the respondents to re-fix the petitioners' pay scale and to disburse the difference in the scale of pay from the date of their initial appointment.
2. The petitioners were appointed as Plumber, Lift Attender, Wireman Grade-I, Gas Maker and Electrician Grade-II. The grievance of the writ petitioners is that they are stagnated in the same post for more than 30 years. There is no opportunity for promotion and therefore, Selection Grade and Special Grade was awarded to these employees.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that while implementing the III Pay Commission recommendations, the pay scale of the petitioners were erroneously fixed in the scale of pay of Rs.160/- instead of Rs.200/-. Thus, the error in fixation crept in from the III Pay Commission itself and consequently, th
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the error in fixation of pay is to be corrected right from the III Pay Commission fixation and the petitioners are to be promoted to the highe....
Employer's right to restructure cadre and rationalize pay scales, and the obligation to rectify pay anomalies caused by promotions.
The court established that pay anomalies must be corrected retrospectively to uphold the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
The court ruled that recovery of higher pay from employees without prior notice and due process violates principles of natural justice, emphasizing the necessity of protecting vested rights.
Employees are entitled to a higher pay scale after 15 years of service based on government resolutions, irrespective of specific qualifications.
The court reaffirmed the limits of Article 226 jurisdiction, emphasizing the need for clear evidence when disputing determined pay scales for workmen.
The decisions of expert bodies like the Pay Commission in the matter of pay-scale fixation are not ordinarily subject to judicial review.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
