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

2024 Supreme(Mad) 67

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G. JAYACHANDRAN, C. KUMARAPPAN, JJ.
The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Industries Department, Chennai & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
K. Vijayakumar - Respondent
W.A. (MD) No. 852 of 2015 & M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2015
Decided On : 09-01-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant:S. Shaji Bino, Standing Counsel. For the Respondents:T. Sakthikumaran for M/s. Victory Associates, Advocates.

Adherence to service rules and incompatibility of different cadres with identical pay scales for promotion.

Headnote:

Technical Officer - Employment Dispute - [Tamil Nadu Salt Corporation Limited Act, Sections 1-20; Government Letter in Lr.No.42228/BPE/03, Finance Department, dated 15.09.2003] - The court discussed the employment history and promotions of the respondent/writ petitioner, the impact of the fifth pay commission's recommendation on pay scales, and the legality of the upgradation proposal by the Board. The court emphasized the importance of adherence to service rules and highlighted the incompatibility of different cadres with identical pay scales for promotion.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent/writ petitioner, an employee of the Tamil Nadu Salt Corporation Limited, challenged the reversion of his pay scale and sought promotion to the Manager cadre.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondent's reversion did not cause prejudice as the monetary benefit of the upgradation was retained, and his claim of being deprived of seniority and promotional opportunities was unfounded.

Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the reversion, the impact on the respondent's seniority and promotional prospects, and the compatibility of different cadres with identical pay scales.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the reversion did not prejudice the respondent, emphasized the importance of adherence to service rules, and rejected the proposal for upgradation as it was contrary to law.

Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the Single Judge and allowed the Writ Appeal, ruling in favor of the State.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters of Patent, against the order dated 18.12.2014, made in W.P. (MD)No.8869 of 2007.)

JUDGMENT

DR. G. JAYACHANDRAN, J & C. KUMARAPPAN, J.

1. The intra-court appeal is preferred by the State, being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dated 18.12.2014, directing the appellants/respondents to give effect to the respondent's/writ petitioner's promotion as Technical Officer in the pay scale of Rs.2200-75-2800-100-4000 with effect from 25.07.1992.

2. The respondent/writ petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in the Tamil Nadu Salt Corporation Limited on 21.09.1975. His probation was declared on 20.09.1977 with the pay scale of Rs.210-5-245-10-325. He was subsequently promoted as Production Supervisor on 27.06.1981 in the pay scale of Rs.400-15-490-20-650-25-700. Subsequently, he was promoted as Technical Officer Grade – II, by order dated 11.06.1986 with the pay scale of Rs.1160-50-1460-70-1950. Thereafter, on 01.09.1989, the respondent/writ petitioner was upgraded as Technical Officer with higher pay scale of Rs.1340-75-1715-90-2435. As per Board's resolution, the uprgradation of the respondent/writ petitioner is to be given with effect from 01.09.1989. However, after implementation of the fifth pay commission's recommendation, it was found that the upgradation subsequent to 01.06.1988 with higher pay scale to be reversed and accordingly, by proceedings dated 15.11.1990, following G.O. (Ms)No.1222, Industries (SIF.1) Department, dated 07.11.1990, the pay scale of Technical Officer Grade – II was fixed at Rs.1640-60-2600-75-2900 and the respondent/writ petitioner was reverted to the post of Technical Officer Grade – II.

3. The respondent/writ petitioner challenged the order of reversion in W.P.No.4633 of 1993, but later withdrawn, hence, the Writ Petition was dismissed on 31.10.1996. After five years of service as Technical Officer Grade – II, the respondent/writ petition was placed under selection grade pay scale of Rs. 2000-60-2300-75-3200. Then, he was promoted as Technical Officer Grade – I with revised pay scale of Rs.8000-275-13500 [Pre-revised pay scale of Rs.2200-75-2800-100-4000].

4. Pursuant to a Board's resolution, post of Technical Officer Grade – I was redesignated as Deputy Project Manager on 04.05.1999. The respondent/writ petitioner was placed under selection grade Deputy Project Manager on 22.01.2007 with the pay scale of Rs.9100-275-14050. According to the respondent/writ petitioner, soon after completion of his probation, he was posted as Production Supervisor on 22.06.1983 and his next promotional avenue was Technical Officer. Whereas, the same was converted into Technical Officer Grade - I and Technical Officer Grade – II and he was placed as Technical Officer Grade – II, by order dated 19.06.1986. In addition to his function as Technical Officer Grade – II, he was placed with responsibility of the post of Production Supervisor and the said post of Technical Officer Grade – II was upgraded with pay scale of Rs.1340-75-1715-90-2435, which is applicable to the post of Technical Officer with effect from 01.11.1990. He assumed charge as Works Manager-in-charge of Sardar Vedarathnam Salt Project, Thambikottai. When the fifth pay commission recommendation came to be implemented, his upgradation from the post of Technical Officer Grade – II to the post of Technical Officer was reversed and he was placed under lesser pay scale. Since there was anomaly in fixation of his pay subsequent to the upgradation and reversion, he made a representation to fix his pay scale at Rs.2200/- with effect from 01.01.1990 and to protect his seniority and give promotion in the Manager cadre on par with his juniors.

5. According to the respondent/writ petitioner, for no fault of his the upgradation made in the year 1989 was soon reverted citing the fifth pay commission's recommendation. However, if he had been allowed to continue in the post of Technical Off

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