Dismissed

The State of Tamilnadu v. a Kalaikumar

Madras HC12 Mar 2014WA/283/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Appeal by Town Panchayats challenging a Single Judge order directing grant of time scale of pay to a sanitary supervisor. The Full Bench distinguished Town Panchayats from Municipalities regarding G.O. applicability. The Court held respondent entitled to pay from date of completion of three years.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal dismissed; directed appellants to implement order dated 4.7.2012, granting time scale of pay w.e.f. 17.9.1999, within eight weeks.

The State of Tamilnadu Vs a Kalaikumar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 12.03.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶7

Writ Appeal No.283 of 2013 and

¶8

M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶9

The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by
Director of Town Panchayats,
Kuralagam, Chennai-108.
2. The Deputy Director of Town Panchayats,
Thirunelveli Regional Office,
Thirunelveli District.
3. Panagudi Selection Grade Town Panchayat
rep. by its Executive Officer,
Radhapuram Taluk,
Thirunelveli District. .. Appellants/Respondents.
.vs.
A.Kalaikumar .. Respondent/Petitioner.
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the order dated 04.07.2012 made in W.P.No.23953 of 2011
W.P.No.23953 of 2011 :

¶10

Petition presented this court under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to fix time scale of pay to the petitioner in the post of Sanitary Supervisor with effect from 17.9.1999 with all attendant and consequential benefits.

¶11

For Appellants : Mr.V.Subbiah, Special Government Pleader

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.V.Babu

¶13

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

¶14

J U D G M E N T

¶15

(Order of the Court was made by N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR,J)

¶16

The Writ Appeal is filed against the order made in W.P.No.23953 of 2011 dated 4.7.2012 wherein the respondent herein has prayed for issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the first appellant to fix time scale of pay to him in the post of Sanitary Supervisor w.e.f. 17.9.1999 i.e. on completion of 3 years of consolidated service with all attendant and consequential benefits.

¶17

According to the respondent, he was appointed as a meter reader in the 3^rd appellant Town Panchayat on daily wage basis on 28.5.1996 and thereafter, he was appointed as Sanitary Supervisor on consolidated salary in Alangulam Town Panchayat and thereafter transferred to Melagaram Town Panchayat. On completion of three years of service, he sent a representation for grant of regular time scale in terms of G.O.Ms.No.125, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (TP3) Department dated 27.5.1999 wherein it was ordered that all the employees of Town Panchayats appointed prior to 31.12.1998 on consolidated pay are entitled to get regular pay on completion of three years of consolidated service.

¶18

The appellants having failed to take action, the respondent filed a Writ Petition on the basis of his representation in W.P.No.30865 of 2004 which was disposed of on 1.12.2006 with a direction to consider the representation and pass orders on merits. Pursuant to the said direction, an order was passed granting regular time scale of pay to the petitioner w.e.f. 3.5.2007. The respondent having aggrieved by not giving time scale of pay from the date of completion of three years of service in terms of G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 27.5.1999 filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.25953 of 2011 and the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition by order dated 4.7.2012 with a direction to grant regular time scale of pay to the respondent on the post of Sanitary Supervisor w.e.f. 17.9.1999 i.e. from the date of completion of three years of service on consolidated pay.

¶19

The said order is challenged by the appellants in this Writ Appeal mainly contending that subsequent to the order of the learned Single Judge, a Full Bench of this Court in a decision reported in S.Dhanasekaran and 24 others vs. Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration and Water Supply, Fort St. George, Chennai-9 and another reported in 2013(6) CTC 593 held that on completion of three years of service on consolidated salary, the employees are not entitled to get time scale of pay.

¶20

The learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the said judgment has no application to the facts of the present case. The judgment of the Full Bench relates to interpretation of G.O.Ms.Nos.101/1997, 71/1998 and 21/2006 in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respect of Sanitary Workers of Municipalities as well as Municipal

¶21

Corporations and in so far as Town Panchayats are concerned, G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 27.5.1999 and G.O.Ms.No.199, dated 12.8.97 were already considered by this Court in various cases and in W.A.Nos.47 and 385 of 2010 dated 23.6.2010, the First Bench of this Court dismissed the similar Writ Appeals filed by the Executive Officer, Palladam (Third Grade Municipality), Palladam. As against the said order of the Division Bench, SLP was preferred which was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the said order was implemented. Therefore, the said judgment of the First Bench of this Court squarely applicable to the facts of this case and the Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶22

We have perused the judgment of the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench judgment in W.A.Nos.47 and 385 of 2010 dated 23.6.2010 as well as the Full Bench decision above cited.

¶23

In paragraphs 25 and 26 of the Full Bench Judgment, the Full Bench clearly held that the sanitary workers of Town Panchayats are to be treated in different footing. The relevant portion is extracted here under :

¶24

"25. So far as the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.47 and 385 of 2010 is concerned, there, the Sweepers/Sanitary Workers, working in Town Panchayats, claimed benefit of G.O.Ms.No.199, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 12.8.1997. In that case, the Division Bench had no occasion to consider the scope of G.O.Ms.Nos.101, 71 and 21, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 30.4.1997, 5.5.1998 and 23.2.2006, respectively. It needs to be mentioned that the judgment in W.A.No.47 and 385 of 2010 was challenged before the Supreme Court by way of SLP and the SLP was dismissed as its threshold by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Though the fact remains so, the said judgment in W.A.No.47 and 385 of 2010 has got nothing to do with the issues relating to the regulation of the Sanitary Workers working in Municipalities and Municipal Corporations. As we have already pointed out, the above judgment relates to sweepers and Sanitary Workers working in Panchayats, who were governed by different Government Orders.

¶25

The judgment in W.A.(MD) No.729 of 2013 relates to the Sanitary Workers working in Municipalities. But, the Division Bench had considered only G.O.Ms.No.199, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 12.8.1997 and not the G.O.Ms.Nos.101, 71 and 21, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 30.4.1997, 5.5.1998 and 23.2.2006, respectively. So far as G.O.Ms.No.199, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 12.8.1997 is concerned, the said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ G.O. has got nothing to do with the Sanitary Workers

¶26

employed on consolidated pay in Municipalities and Municipal Corporations. There were only six categories of employees for whose benefit G.O.Ms.No.199, dated 12.8.1997, was issued. They are Sanitary Inspector, Sanitary Maistry, Sweeper, Cross Pool Cleaner, Compost Mazdoor and Drainage Cleaner. Therefore, in our considered view, the said G.O.Ms.No.199, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 12.8.1997, cannot be made applicable to the Sanitary Workers working in Municipalities/Municipal Corporations..."

¶27

In the light of the said findings given by the Full Bench, we are of the view that the learned Special Government Pleader is not justified in contending that the issue is covered against the respondent in terms of the Full Bench Judgment as the Full Bench has distinguished the employees of the Town Panchayats. In the Division Bench judgment made in W.A.No.47 and 385 of 2010 dated 26.3.2010, a First Bench held thus :

¶28

"2. The short facts leading to the filing of these appeals are stated here under:

¶29

The petitioners in both the writ petitions were appointed as sweepers/Sanitary Workers by the concerned Town Panchayats, on a consolidated pay of Rs.900/- with effect from 27.3.1998 and 30.4.1998 respectively. They joined duty on different dates in the year 1998. As per the Government Order dated 17.8.1999, on completion of three years of service on consolidated pay, they should have been brought under the time scale of pay with effect from the date when they completed three years. But by means of the orders impugned in the writ petitions, they were brought under the time scale of pay only with effect from 23.2.2006 in so far as W.A.No.47 of 2010 is concerned and with effect from 23.6.2006 in so far as W.A.No.385 of 2010 is concerned. The said orders were challenged in the writ petitions.

¶30

The learned Single Judge, on the basis of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1454 of 2007, dated 19.12.2008 in the case of Director of Panchayats, Kuralagam, Chennai and two others vs. R.Sundaradas, allowed the writ petitions and held that the writ petitioners are entitled to the time scale of pay only from the date when they completed three years on consolidated pay and not from any subsequent dated. Aggrieved by the same, the respective Panchayats have filed the above appeals.

¶31

We have perused the judgment, dated 19.12.2008 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforementioned appeal. In our view, as rightly held by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶32

the learned Single Judge,the present cases are squarely covered by the said Division Bench judgment. We do not find any reason to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. There being no merit in the appeals they stand dismissed."

¶33

The SLP filed against the above said order in SLP (Civil) No.26605 of 2010 was dismissed on 27.09.2010. Further, the order of the learned Single Judge was also implemented by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.570, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 15.11.2010. Hence, the respondent herein is entitled to get the benefit of time scale pay as ordered by the learned Single Judge.

¶34

In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed and the appellants are directed to implement the order of the learned Single Judge dated 4.7.2012 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.

¶35

Sd/-
Asst. Registrar[cs.v]
Dt/-21/03/2014 .
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar.
tsi
To
1. The Director of Town Panchayats,
State of Tamil Nadu
Kuralagam, Chennai-108.
2. The Deputy Director of Town Panchayats,
Thirunelveli Regional Office,
Thirunelveli District.
3. The Executive Officer,
Panagudi Selection Grade Town Panchayat
Radhapuram Taluk,
Thirunelveli District.
1 CC to the Government Pleader SR NO 12203
W.A.No.283 of 2013
tej[co]
gp/24.3.

¶36

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

The State of Tamilnadu v. a Kalaikumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Tamilnadu v. a Kalaikumar

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

The Principal (Incharge Vs R.Anbazhagan

Under Secretary to Govt Vs Noorjahan

The State of Tamilnadu Vs a.Rajeswari

S.Paulraj Vs the Registrar of Coop.