Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 3328
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
J. NISHA BANU, N. ANAND VENKATESH, JJ.
A. Subramanian (died) & Another - Appellant
Versus
Secretary to Government, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.A. (MD). No. 84 of 2013
Decided On : 28-09-2022
For the Appellants:D. Sivaraman, Advocate. For the Respondents: D. Sasikumar, Additional Government Pleader.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the entitlement to the revision of the scale of pay with retrospective effect is contingent on the treatment of other employees in the same organization and the comparability of qualifications, method of appointment, and duties and responsibilities.
Headnote:
Revision of Scale of Pay - Employment Dispute - The court held that the writ petitioner/appellant was not entitled to demand for the retrospective effect of the revised scale of pay since no such allowance was given to any other employee in Khadi Board. The court concluded that the qualifications, method of appointment, and duties and responsibilities assigned to the post were different from those in other government departments, and therefore, the appellant could not seek the same treatment.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner sought the revision of his salary under the Fifth Pay Commission, claiming that his services as a Fitter Grade-I were regularized belatedly and his promotions and increments were not properly sanctioned. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to consider the petitioner's representation, and the salary was revised but given effect only from the date of the order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the writ petitioner was not entitled to demand for the retrospective effect of the revised scale of pay, as no such allowance was given to any other employee in Khadi Board. The court also noted that the qualifications, method of appointment, and duties and responsibilities assigned to the post were different from those in other government departments, and therefore, the appellant could not seek the same treatment.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant was entitled to the revision of the scale of pay with retrospective effect, considering the disparity in the treatment of employees in the Khadi Board compared to other government departments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant was not entitled to demand for the retrospective effect of the revised scale of pay, as no such allowance was given to any other employee in Khadi Board. The court also emphasized the differences in qualifications, method of appointment, and duties and responsibilities assigned to the post, compared to other government departments.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 24.08.2012 made in W.P.(MD)No.432 of 2011.)
Nisha Banu, J.
1. This writ appeal has been filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(MD)No.432 of 2011, dated 24.08.2012.
2. The writ petitioner/1st appellant died during the pendency of this writ appeal and hence his brother has been substituted in the place of the deceased appellant.
3. The case of the writ petitioner is that he was appointed on 03.06.1988 by the third respondent. The appointment of the writ petitioner was regularised on 23.07.1999 by the third respondent through proceedings dated 23.07.1999. According to the writ petitioner, his services as a Fitter Grade-I was regularised belatedly and his promotions and increments were not properly sanctioned. The Fifth Pay Commission came into effect from 01.06.1988 and the petitioner sought for the salary fixed under the Fifth Pay Commission since his appointment dated back to 03.06.1988.
4. The representations made by the writ petitioner in this regard was not considered and hence the petitioner filed W.P.No.31799 of 2006 seeking for appropriate directions. The writ petition was disposed of through an order dated 06.09.2010 directing the third respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner. The third respondent through the impugned proceedings dated 06.12.2010 revised the salary of the petitioner, but however, gave effect to the same only from the date of issue of the order. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petition was filed before this Court.
5. The learned Single Judge, on considering the grievance of the writ petitioner, rendered a finding to the effect that the Khadi Board was an independent legal entity and the writ petitioner, who was working in the Board cannot claim parity with the Government servants as they form a different class. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge came to a conclusion that it was well within the power of the Khadi Board to grant the pay scale and make it operative from the date of the order.
6. Heard Mr.D.Sivaraman, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.D.Sasikumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
7. It is seen from the records that the revision of scale of pay under G.O.Ms.No.762, dated 20.08.1986 for the Government Departments, was in operation even before the appointment of the writ petitioner in the Khadi Board. The writ petitioner joined in the Khadi Board as Fitter Grade-II on 10.06.1988 in the scale of pay of Rs.555-970.
8. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the post of Fitter, which was brought under Group-II, was subsequently taken to Group-I through G.O.Ms.No.817, dated 27.07.1990. In view of the same, the benefits that were given to Group-I must also be given to those who were holding the post of Fitter. This is more so since such an effect was given in all the Government Departments. A decision was also taken to implement the Government Orders in Khadi Board also.
9. It is seen from the counter affidavit filed by the Khadi Board that four posts of Fitters were created by the Khadi Board through proceedings, dated 26.10.1987 in the scale of pay of Rs.555-970. The Government through G.O.Ms.No.6636, dated 27.06.1989, ordered revision of scale of pay for the post of Fitter and it was communicated to the Khadi Board through proceedings, dated 15.07.1989. Accordingly, the revision in the scale of pay was done and it was revised from Rs. 555-970 to Rs.825-1200. The pay of the appellant was also revised to Rs. 825-1200.
10. The Government through G.O.Ms.No.162, dated 13.04.1998 revised the scale of pay to Rs.2750-4400 and a further revision took place in the year 2006 to Rs.5200-20200+Grade Pay Rs. 1800/-. In the case of the appellant, the Board had ordered for the fixation of his pay at Rs.5200-20200 + Grade Pay Rs.2200/- from the date of the issue of the order. By virtue of the same, the past disparity
