Allowed

S.Sajikumar v. the District Collector

Madras HC20 Sept 2011WP(MD)/10665/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the Madras High Court directed a Panchayat President to pay daily wages to a Water Supply Attender appointed in 2008. The court held that the petitioner, appointed as a daily waged employee, is entitled to wages fixed by the District Collector and periodically revised, rejecting the argument that he should receive a consolidated monthly salary applicable to pa

What did the court decide?

The second respondent was directed to pay arrear duties of daily wages from the date of initial appointment and continue to pay wages at rates determined by the District Collector.

S.Sajikumar Vs the District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.09.2011

¶3

CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

S.Sajikumar : Petitioner Vs.

¶5

1.The District Collector, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶6

2.The Panchayat President, Mullankanavilai Village Panchayat, Mullankanavilai P.O., Kanyakumari District. : Respondents

¶7

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to pay the daily wages to the petitioner fixed by the District Collector time to time.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.Gini Manuel For Mr.D.Anbarasu For Respondents : Mr.B.Pugalendhi, Special Government Pleader

¶9

ORDER

¶10

The petitioner has sought for a Mandamus, directing the Panchayat President, Mullankanavilai Village Panchayat, Mullankanavilai, P.O., Kanyakumari District, the second respondent herein to pay daily wages to him, as fixed by the District Collector.

¶11

According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Water Supply Attender in the second respondent Panchayat on 24.01.2008 on daily wages, as fixed by the District Collector. Periodically, daily wages have been revised, based on the market value. In the current year, the daily wage applicable to the post of Water Supply Attender is Rs.275/- per day. However, the petitioner is being paid only a consolidated pay of Rs.600/per month. Placing reliance on the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.10437 of 2002, dated 02.03.2002, confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.2413 of 2003, dated 17.02.2004 and the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No.12380 of 2004, dated 30.07.2004, the petitioner has sought for a Writ of Mandamus.

¶12

When the matter came up for admission, Mr.B.Pugalendhi, learned Special Government Pleader, who took notice on behalf of the respondents, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ opposed the relief sought for, on the ground that the Government have issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.15, Rural Development and Panchayat (E5)

¶13

¶14

Department, dated 07.02.2011, to the effect that Pump Operators, working in Panchayats, on part-time basis, would be paid a consolidated pay of Rs.2,000/- from 01.01.2011 and that the petitioner, who is also a similarly placed person, is entitled to only a consolidated pay. He further submitted that if the petitioner is permitted daily wages, as per the market rate fixed by the District Collector, in his proceedings in Roc.No.A/13963/2011, dated 27.07.2011, he would be drawing more salary than a regularly appointed person. In such circumstances, payment of salary on consolidated basis is proper and that the petitioner is not eligible for the relief sought for.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶16

Material on record shows that the second respondent Panchayat has passed a resolution No.204, dated 24.01.2008, to appoint the petitioner as a Water Supply Attender on daily wage basis, as fixed by the District Collector, Kanyakumari and pursuant to the said resolution, an order of appointment has been made on 24.01.2008. The petitioner has been appointed to open water tanks and distribute water in various places, viz., Kolunchivilai, Kottriyarmoola Vilai, Mayilparampu, Moochanthi, Channamvilai, Konanvilai and Ettani, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Panchayat.

¶17

In W.P.No.10437 of 2002, one Mr.Jeba Kumar, who was appointed as a Water Supply Assistant under the third respondent Panchayat therein on 14.12.1999, has sought for a Mandamus, claiming revised daily wages. According to him, the third respondent therein offered to pay wages to him only at the rate of Rs.400/- per month, as per G.O.Ms.No.119, Rural Development (E.5) Department, dated 10.05.2000. The case of the petitioner therein was that the said Government Order was applicable only to those persons who were engaged as Pump Operators, on part time basis and, therefore, he is entitled to the periodical revision of daily wages, as fixed by the District Collector. An objection has been raised by the respondents therein contending inter alia that the petitioner therein would be entitled to only Rs.400/- as per the above said Government Order. Rejecting the said contention, this Court, by order dated 02.03.2002, granted the relief of Mandamus and further directed the respondents therein to pay the arrears of wages to the petitioner, as per order dated 14.12.1999 at the market rate fixed by the District Collector. Arrears amount payable from October, 2001 to end of July, 2002, was directed to be cleared, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order and it was further directed that wages for the period commencing from August, 2002 should be paid regularly as per the normal schedule.

¶18

Reverting back to the case on hand, the very same objection is being raised by the learned Special Government Pleader, placing reliance on G.O.Ms.No.15, Rural Development and Panchayat (E5) Department, dated 07.02.2011. At this juncture, it is relevant to extract paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the judgment made in W.P.No.10437 of 2002, dated 02.03.2002, wherein this Court had considered the objections as follows:

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

¶21

"4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the third respondent. The fact that the petitioner was appointed as Water Supply Attender on daily wages as fixed by the first respondent, the District Collector, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil based on the order dated 14.12.1999 is not disputed. However, it has been indicated that the petitioner is eligible to get Rs.400/- as per G.O.Ms.No.119, Rural Development, dated 10.05.2000.

¶22

I have gone through the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.119, dated 10.5.2000. The said order discloses that it was applicable to the persons who have been engaged as pump operators on the part time basis. In the present case, the order dated 14.12.1999 makes it clear that the petitioner had been appointed as Drinking Water Supply Assistant and he had been engaged to supervise whether water is supplied to all the places pertaining to Panchayat from 4.30 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. He also use to concentrate more on the places of high level and ensure proper water supply by inspecting twice a day. A perusal of the order of appointment as well duty chart makes it clear that he has been appointed as full time worker on daily wages. It is evident that subsequent to G.O.Ms.No.119, dated 10.05.2000, which is applicable to the pump operators appointed on part time basis, is not applicable to the petitioner."

¶23

The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, aggrieved over the order made in W.P.No.10437 of 2002, dated 02.03.2002, has filed a Writ Appeal in W.A.No.2413 of 2003, before a Division Bench and while confirming the order of the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench has passed the following order:

¶24

"We do not find any merit in this writ appeal. In the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.10437 of 2002, dated 02.08.2002, which has been impugned in this writ appeal, the learned Single Judge has found, as a matter of fact, that the first respondent herein was issued with an order of appointment dated 14.12.1999 as a full-time daily wage employee and that his rate of wages would be as fixed by the District Collector at the Prevailing market rate. It was also claimed by the first respondent that the said market rate was subsequently enhanced, which was also applied to him. When such was the factual position. When the wages of the first respondent was altered by applying the Government Order, G.O.Ms.No.119, Rural Development (E-5) Department, dated 10.05.2000, by revising the wages to Rs.400/- per month, the writ petition came to be filed. The learned Judge has found that the said Government order was applicable only to part-time daily-rated employees, whose wages are to be fixed by the District Collector on the basis of the market rate prevailing at the relevant point of time. In such circumstances, the direction of the learned Single Judge, by allowing the writ petition directing the appellant to pay the arrears of wages for the period October 2001 to July 2002 as per the order of appointment dated 14.12.1999 cannot be interfered https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with. The writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed."

¶25

¶26

Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.12380 of 2004 has been filed by the District Collector, Kanyakumari and when the matter came up on 30.07.2004 for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has desired to withdraw the petition in order to take other appropriate steps in accordance with law. Accordingly, leave has been granted and the Special Leave Petition has been dismissed as withdrawn.

¶27

With respect to the very same district, three other Water Supply Attenders working in Petchiparai Ist Grade Village Panchayat, Petchiparai, have filed W.P.(MD)Nos.10268 to 10270 of 2008, contending inter alia that the daily wages as fixed by the District Collector, vide proceedings in D.Dis.A1/27858/08, dated 30.06.2008 was not paid to them. While considering their grievance, a learned Single Judge, in the common order in W.P.(MD)Nos.10268 to 10270 of 2008, dated 13.12.2008, directed the respondents therein to pay the daily wages to the petitioners permissible under the relevant rules or the Government Orders or that of the District Collector for the days during which they had worked and continue to pay the same. The learned Single Judge has further directed that the arrears shall be paid within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the said common order.

¶28

Perusal of the proceedings in Roc.No.A/13963/2011, dated 27.07.2011 of the District Collector, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil, shows that the rates of daily wages to the daily labours paid from contingencies in Kanyakumari District for the year 2011-2012 has been fixed as detailed below:

¶29

Sl.No Details of Labourers	Rates of wages per
.	day
1 Adult men coolies	Rs.275/-
2 Adult women coolies	Rs.275/-
3 Semen messengers in Animal Husbandry Dept.	Rs.250/-
Coolies in soil testing laboratories in	Rs.225/-
4 Agricultural Department

¶30

In paragraph No.3 of the order of the District Collector, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil, it is stated that the rates and wages fixed in the order dated 27.07.2011 will not be applicable to the agricultural labourers, as the wages of agricultural labourers are fixed by the Government under the Minimum Wages Act. It is also stated that the revised rates will take effect from 01.04.2011 and that will be applicable upto 31.03.2012.

¶31

G.O.Ms.No.15, Rural Development and Panchayat (E5) Department, dated 07.02.2011 has been issued, pursuant to a reply by the Hon'ble Deputy Chief Minister on 13.01.2011 in the Legislative Assembly. The reply reads as follows:

¶32

"fpuhk Cuhl;rpfspy; gzpg[hpa[k ; Bky;epiy ePh;j; Bjf;fj; bjhl;o naf;Fk; gzpapid Bkw;bfhs;Sk; gFjp Beug; gzpahsh;fSf;F jw;BghJ U.1150/- bjhFg;g{jpakhf eph;zapf;fg;gl;L jw;fhypf cah;t[fisa[k; (Adhoc increase) Brh;j;J khjk; U.1510/https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ tHA;fg;gl;L tUfpwJ. nth;fSila Cjpaj;ij nth;fSila gzpapd; jd;ik kw;Wk; ePz;lfhy Bfhhpf;ifapid fUj;jpy; bfhz;L 01.01.2011 Kjy; bjhFg;g{jpak; U.2000/- vd

¶33

¶34

eph;zapj;J tHA;fg;gLk;. njd;Kyk; Rkhh; 40,000 Bgh; gad;bgWth;.

¶35

Subsequently, representations have also been made by the parttime employees for revision of their consolidated salary. Considering the above, orders have been issued in G.O.Ms.No.15, Rural Development and Panchayat (E5) Department, dated 07.02.2011 to enhance the consolidated salary of water pump operators working on part time wages from 01.01.2011 at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month. Paragraph No.3 of the said Government order is re-produced hereunder:

¶36

"3. Cuf tsh;r;rp kw;Wk; Cuhl;rp Mizahpd; fUj;JUit Vw;W fpuhk Cuhl;rpfspy; gzpg[hpa[k; gFjpBeug; gzpahsh;fshd Bky;epiy ePh;j; Bjf;fj; bjhl;o naf;Fgth;fspd; bjhFg;g{jpaj;ij 01.01.2011 Kjy; khjbkhd;Wf;F U.2000/- vd;W eph;zapj;J muR MizapLfpwJ."

¶37

Thus, it is evident that when similar objections were raised in the year 2002, placing reliance on the then existing G.O.Ms.No.119, Rural Development (E.5) Department, dated 10.05.2000, issued in respect of those who were engaged as Pump Operators on part time basis, this Court has categorically held that the above said Government Order can be made applicable only to Pump Operators appointed on part time basis and not applicable to Water Supply Attenders appointed on daily wages as fixed by the District Collectors. The said objection has been overruled by this Court. In such circumstances, the objection of the learned Special Government Pleader, on the same lines once again, placing reliance on G.O.Ms.No.15, Rural Development and Panchayat (E5) Department, dated 07.02.2011 issued in respect of pump operators engaged on part time basis, cannot be countenanced, as he is bound by the earlier decisions of this Court. The pay of Water Supply Attenders has to be paid as per the terms of appointment. The contention that by virtue of this daily rated engagement, the petitioner and others, who were similarly placed, are to be paid a higher monthly salary than the regularly appointed persons and that, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for, also cannot be countenanced, for the reason that it is for the district administration to monitor and avoid excess expenditure, if appointment on daily wages, as per the rate fixed by the District Collector, is likely to cause expenditure.

¶38

In the case on hand, the petitioner has been appointed in the year 2008 and so long as the appointment of the petitioner is on daily wage basis, as per the rate fixed by the District Collector, the respondents are bound to pay the wages as fixed and periodically revised.

¶39

In the light of the above discussion and following the decisions stated supra , this Court is of the view that for the failure to implement the orders of the Government/District Collector, the District Collector, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, who has determined the daily rated wages for the employees to be paid from contingencies, is directed to oversee as to whether his directions regarding fixation of minimum wages have been properly implemented by all the Panchayat Union Presidents/Executive Officers, so as to avoid complaints in future. The second respondent is directed to pay the arrears of daily wages, taking https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ into account the periodical enhancement from the date of initial appointment, pursuant to the resolution, within two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and continue to pay the wages at the rate

¶40

¶41

determined by the District Collector. If the second respondent fails to comply with the directions of this Court, then appropriate action under the statutory rules shall be taken.

¶42

The Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs. SD

¶43

ASST REGISTRAR ( AE )

/TRUE COPY/

SUB ASST REGISTRAR

SML

1.The District Collector,

¶49

Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶50

2.The Panchayat President,

¶51

Mullankanavilai Village Panchayat,

¶52

Mullankanavilai P.O., Kanyakumari District.

¶53

1CC TO THE SPL. GOVT PLEADER SR: 32641:

¶54

DM::2011:SEPTEMBER:26::

¶55

Order made in W.P.(MD).No.10665 of 2011

¶56

Dated:- 20.09.2011

¶57

6P:4C::

¶58

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.Sajikumar v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Sajikumar v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S. Mekala Vs the Registrar

G.K. Dhamayanthe, Vs the Joint Director

M. Muthuvel Vs the District Collector

Mrs. M. Josphin Iruthaya Rani, Vs the Member Secretary

I.Raju Vs the State of Tamilnadu

R. Balasubramani, Vs the Principal Secretary to