Entitlement of individuals recruited prior to 01.06.2009 to the benefits under G.O.Ms.No.340 and the government's duty to rectify pay anomalies.

ORDER :

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling records of the first respondent relating to the Principal Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Chennai passed in Letter No. 6717/B2/2018-03 dated 26.07.2018 and communicated by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Periyar Vaigai Basin Division, Madurai in his -I/12/2018(997) dated 10.10.2018 and quash the same and consequently direct the first and second respondents to extend the benefit as per G.O.Ms.No.340 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 26.08.2010 to the petitioner also on par with similarly placed persons, within a specified time frame that may be fixed by this Court.

The Writ Petitions are filed to quash the order dated 26.07.2018 with a consequential relief to extend the benefit as per G.O.Ms.No.340 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 26.08.2010 to the petitioner also on par with similarly placed persons.

2. The issue raised in all the Writ Petitions are one and the same. Hence, a common order is passed.

3. The petitioners were recruited through TNPSC as Typist in the year 2006-2007 and joined the duty as Typist in September 2009. The selection list of persons for the post of Typist, who were selected under the Notification for the year 2006-2007 and who wrote Group-IV examination on 27.01.2008 was published on 07.11.2008.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that some of the employees / Association have earlier represented before the “One Man Commission” constituted to examine the anomalies if any, in the recommendations of the official committee 2009 that the Junior Assistants who were recruited through TNPSC have been intimated in the month of May 2009 regarding their allotment of Government Department and also informed to await for further communication from the appointing authorities. Accordingly, some of the Head of the Departments have issued appointment orders to some of the individuals to join as Junior Assistants in the month of May and June 2009. In some cases, though some individuals were given appointment in the month of May 2009 itself, the Contract Assistants who were in service from 2003 onwards were relieved by the Departments belatedly which has resulted in joining the post of Junior Assistants at a later date that is beyond 31.05.2009. The Associations / individual employees pointed out that the delay in relieving them is due to administrative reasons and therefore, they have requested to equate their pay on par with the individuals who were appointed prior to 01.06.2009. But the pay of Junior Assistants / Agricultural Officers who were recruited by the TNPSC in March 2009 and May 2009 and who were joined on or after 01.06.2009, were not able to get the monetary benefits. The contention of the petitioners is that there is disparity in benefits recommended by one man commission in the revised scale of pay 2009. In G.O.Ms.No.340 Finance (Pay Cell Department) dated 26.08.2010, the above disparity between the juniors who joined duty earlier and the seniors who joined subsequently has been discussed at length and it was decided to allow the benefits who joined belatedly due to administrative reasons and ordered to grant the same benefits to the seniors on par with the juniors. Since the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioners to grant benefits under G.O.Ms.No.340 dated 26.08.2010, the present Writ Petition is filed.

5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioners in these Writ Petitions are not entitled to the benefits granted under G.O.Ms.No.340 dated 26.08.2010, since the petitioners were appointment after 01.06.2009 and not prior to 01.06.2009. The Learned Additional Government Pleader referred to G.O.Ms.No.340 dated 26.08.2010. Under Clause 6 of the said Government Order, it has been held as under:

“6) The above orders allowing fitment benefit is not applicable to the