JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

Under assail is the writ order dated 17.10.2023 passed in W.P.No.18375 of 2021. Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (hereinafter referred to as 'TWAD Board') preferred the present intra court appeal under Clause XV of the Letters Patent.

2. Notices were served to the respondents. Mr.M.Loganathan, learned counsel who appeared for the writ petitioners in the writ petition, appeared in the present writ appeal also.

3. The facts in nut shell are that the respondents / writ petitioners instituted the writ petition seeking the scale of pay applicable to the post of Grade I technical post. However, the Board contends that these employees are engaged as Nominal Muster Roll employees (hereinafter referred to as ‘NMRs’) and their services were regularised in pursuance to G.O.Ms.No.111, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 29.09.2006 and subsequent to the regularisation of their services, they have been fixed with the scale of pay as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.111. In other words, these regularised NMRs are eligible to draw scale of pay applicable to Grade II technical posts.

4. The case of the contesting respondents is that, their services are regularised by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.111, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 29.09.2006. However, they are SSLC passed candidates possessing ITI qualification and therefore, the scale of pay is to be fixed as applicable to Grade I technical posts.

5. Question arises whether these respondents herein are eligible to draw scale of pay as applicable to the technical posts of Grade-I or Grade-II?

6. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.S.Ravindran appearing on behalf of the Board would mainly contend that the respondents were not appointed to the technical posts of Grade-I. They were initially engaged as NMRs and their services were regularised by virtue of the policy decision taken by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.111 dated 29.09.2006. The said Government Order in clear terms stipulates the scale of pay which is applicable to Grade II technical posts and therefore the respondents are eligible to draw scale of pay applicable to Grade II technical posts. The mode of appointment to the technical posts of Grade-I is, direct recruitment or by way of promotion. The respondents herein are neither directly recruited nor promoted to the post of Grade-I technical posts. Since they were regularised first time to the entry cadre, their pay scale is to be fixed as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.111 dated 29.09.2006.

7. Learned Senior Counsel would contend that several errors have been committed by the Board authorities by fixing the scale wrongly to the employees. Audit objections were raised. Thereafter, the erroneous scale of pay granted to these regularised NMR employees were revised and refixation was done based on their eligibility as per G.O.Ms.No.111. However, he would contend that the Board has taken a decision not to recover the excess salary already paid to these employees. Therefore, their claim that they have passed SSLC has no relevance in the context of their initial appointment since they were regularised from NMR category.

8. Mr.Loganathan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents would oppose by stating that all the respondents have completed SSLC and ITI. Therefore, they are entitled to claim the scale of pay as applicable to the technical posts of Grade I. He would further submit that the classification of those posts are done only based on educational qualification. SSLC passed candidates are eligible to the scale of pay applicable to Grade-I and SSLC failed candidates are eligible to draw the scale of pay applicable to Grade-II. Therefore, respondents are entitled to get the pay applicable to the technical posts of Grade-I. He submits that the Division Bench of Madurai Bench has passed an order in favour of similarly placed employees like that of the respondents. The Board also gran