##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29-09-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN WA Nos. 3824 and 3834 of 2025 and CMP.No.31416 of 2025 {CNR:HCMA011665322025}

W.A.No.3824 of 2025:

The Executive Engineer Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, RWS Division, Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District.

..Appellant Vs T Manivannan Old No.79, New No.210, N.M.K. Street, Ayanavaram, Chennai – 600 023.

..Respondent Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, to set aside the order dated 02.06.2025 passed .by the learned Judge of this Hon’ble Court in Rev. Aplw. No. 10 of 2025 in W.P. No. 6483 of 2008.

W.A.No.3834 of 2025:

1. The Managing Director, TWAD Board, 31, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

2. The Executive Engineer, TWAD Board, Maintenance Division, Alandur, Chennai – 600 016. … Appellants Vs.

T Manivannan Old No.79, New No.210, N.M.K. Street, Ayanavaram, Chennai – 600 023. ...Respondent Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, to set aside the order dated 02.06.2025 passed .by the learned Judge of this Hon’ble Court in Rev. Aplw. No. 59 of 2015 in W.P. No.31941 of 2004 and to allow the Rev. Aplw. No.59 of 2015 as prayed for.

For Appellants: Mr.S.Ravindran, Senior Counsel for Ms.S.Mekhala Standing Counsel for TWAD (in both the writ appeal)

For Respondent: Mr.G.Mutharasu for M/S.S.M.Jayanthi (in both the writ appeal) COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

The unsuccessful petitioners in Review Application No. 59 of 2015 and Review Application No. 10 of 2025 are before this Court as the appellants.

2. Review Application No. 59 of 2015 was filed against the order dated

08.11.2013 in W.P. No. 31941 of 2004. Likewise, Review Application No. 10 of 2025 was filed against the order dated 08.11.2013 in W.P. No. 6483 of

2008.

3. The respondent filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 31941 of 2004 for a Certiorarified Mandamus challenging the Proceedings No. 2047/EA3/AIR/2004 dated 09.08.2004, and for a Mandamus to restore the pay that the petitioner was drawing prior to the issuance of the impugned order. Writ Petition No. 6483 of 2008 was filed challenging the impugned proceedings dated 04.03.2008 in EA/364/2008. Both writ petitions were allowed by a common order dated 08.11.2013. Against the said order in W.P. No. 31941 of 2004, Writ Appeal No. 1492 of 2014 was filed, and the Division Bench, vide its order dated 19.11.2014, granted liberty to the Board to withdraw the appeal with liberty to file a review application against the writ petition order. Pursuant to the said liberty, the Board filed Review Applications, which were dismissed on 02.06.2025. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Appeals have been filed.

4. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he was initially appointed as Fitter Grade-II on 01.04.1991. There were different pay scales for posts like Fitter, Welder, Electrician, etc., in various departments. To fix these different pay scales, a One-man Committee was constituted in G.O. Ms. No. 1267, Finance (PC-I) Department, dated 08.12.1985. The One-man Committee gave its recommendations to the Government, and based on those recommendations, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 762, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 20.08.1986. As per the Government recommendations, there were two types of posts, viz., Electrician Grade-I and Electrician Grade-II. Since the petitioner passed S.S.L.C. with an I.T.I. qualification, he was designated as Fitter Grade-I, and his pay was fixed in the scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000/- with effect from 01.01.1996. The said fixation was withdrawn by the Board on the ground that the pay fixation is applicable only to Electrician Grade-I and not to Fitter Grade-II. The petitioner's pay was re-fixed under the category of Fitter Grade-II w.e.f. 01.01.1996, and recovery was also ordered. Challenging the same, the petitioner approached