Allowed

The Government of Tamil Nadu, v. R.Rajadurai

Madras HC13 Nov 2019WA(MD)/1188/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal by the State against a single judge's direction to refix the pay scale of Block Health Statisticians on par with paramedical posts. Holding that pay fixation and assessment of equivalence of duties are matters for expert bodies, the Bench set aside the order and dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal allowed; the order dated 29.06.2017 in W.P.(MD) No.3803 of 2011 set aside and that writ petition dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

The Government of Tamil Nadu, Vs R.Rajadurai — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

W.A.(MD) No.1188 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Date of Reserving the Judgment Date of Pronouncing the Judgment 06.11.2019 13.11.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.THARANI

¶6

W.A.(MD) No.1188 of 2019 and C.M.P.(MD) No.10317 of 2019

¶7

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu

¶8

Represented by its Principal Secretary

¶9

Finance (Pay Cell) Department

¶10

Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009

¶11

2.The Principal Secretary

¶12

to the Government of Tamil Nadu

¶13

Health and Family Welfare Department Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009

¶14

3.The Director of Family Welfare

¶15

Chennai-600 008 ... Appellants

-vs-

1.R.Rajathurai

2.B.Ponnupillai

3.S.Nambirajan

4.C.Ramachandra Kavitha

¶21

5.I.Thankaraj

¶22

6.D.Kingsley Christoper

¶23

7.A.Devakumar

¶24

8.S.Kathirvel

¶25

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

¶26

1/13

¶27

W.A.(MD) No.1188 of 2019

9.M.Ranganathan

10.M.J.Venkatesan

11.R.Elangovan

12.R.Kumaresan ... Respondents

¶32

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order, dated 29.06.2017, passed in W.P.(MD) No.3803 of 2011, on the file of this Court.

¶33

Prayer in WP(MD). 3803 of 2011 :

¶34

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to revise the scale of pay of the petitioners as Block Health statisticians as Rs.9,300-34,800 per month with appropriate Grade Pay of Rs. 4,400/- per month with effect from 01/01/2006 which is the date of revision of scale of pay as per G.O.Ms.No. 234, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 01/06/2009, with all consequential benefits.

¶35

For Appellants : Mr.K.Chellapandian Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.A.Muthukaruppan Additional Government Pleader

¶36

For Respondents : Mr.K.N.Thampi

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.,

¶39

The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Principal Secretary, Finance (Pay Cell) Department and two others are the appellants in this writ appeal.

¶40

2. The appellants were the respondents in W.P.(MD) No.3803 of 2011 filed by the respondents herein.

¶41

3. The respondents herein filed the writ petition praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the appellants to revise their scale of pay as Block Health Statisticians as Rs.930034800 with Grade Pay of Rs.4400/- with effect from 01.01.2006, the date of revision of scale of pay vide G.O.Ms.No.234, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 01.06.2009, with all consequential benefits.

¶42

4. The learned Single Bench, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2017, has allowed the writ petition directing the appellants https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶43

2/13

¶44

W.A.(MD) No.1188 of 2019

¶45

to consider the case of the respondents and take steps to rectify the anomalies and refix their scale of pay in tune with the recommendation of One Man Commission.

¶46

5. The One Man Commission was constituted by the Government to look into the representations received from various Section of Government employees stating that an anomalous situation has arisen, when the scales of pay were revised and they have been fixed in a lower scale of pay and the same requires to be rectified.

¶47

6. The case of the respondents / writ petitioners was that their scale of pay has to be revised on par with that of Pharmacist, Lab Technician Grade-I, Lab Technician Grade-II and Health Inspector Grade-I. The One Man Commission, in its report submitted during March, 2010, considered the representation of the Tamil Nadu Block Health Statisticians Association and stated that upon examination of the qualification, nature of duties and responsibilities attached to the post of Block Health Statistician, there is no anomaly in the existing scale of pay.

¶48

7. Based on the recommendations of the One Man Commission, the Government passed G.O.Ms.No.296, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 26.08.2010, revising the scales of pay and re-designating certain categories in Medical Education and Medical and Rural Health Services Department. Since the One Man Commission did not give any positive recommendation in respect of the post of Block Health Statistician, the said post was not included in the said Government Order. The respondents filed the writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.3803 of 2011 praying for a direction to the appellants to revise their scale of pay on par with those three posts, namely, Pharmacist, Lab Technician Grade-I, Lab Technician Grade-II and Health Inspector Grade-I.

¶49

8. During the pendency of the writ petition, it appears that the Block Health Statisticians Association approached the Pay Grievance Redressal Cell constituted by the Government, vide G.O.Ms.No.234, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 01.06.2009, requesting to examine the representation given by them and revise the scale of pay of Block Health Health Statistician as Rs.520020200+G.P.Rs.2800 on par with Ministerial Assistant. In the said representation, it has been mentioned that the first respondent and one A.Deivasikamani had filed W.P.Nos.28951 of 2010 and 3803 of 2011 to direct the Department to revise their scale of pay from Rs.5200-20200+Grade Pay of Rs.2400 to Rs.9300-Rs.34800+Grade Pay of Rs.4400 as ordered in G.O.Ms.Nos.297 and 298, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 26.08.2010, on the ground that the other Block level posts, namely, Block Health Supervisor / Statistical Assistant and Block Extension Educator were also equivalent posts. Taking note of these facts, the Pay Grievance Redressal Cell did not recommend the revision of scale of pay, but recommended revision of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶50

3/13

¶51

W.A.(MD) No.1188 of 2019

¶52

Grade Pay from Rs.2400 to Rs.2800. This recommendation was accepted by the Government and G.O.Ms.No.288, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 22.07.2013 had been issued.

¶53

9. The respondents pursued the writ petition seeking for revision of scale of pay and consequently, fixation of higher Grade Pay.

¶54

10. The learned Writ Court took note of G.O.Ms.No.234, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 01.06.2009, and held that it could be seen from the said Government Order that at least the posts of Pharmacist, Lab Technician Grade-I, Lab Technician Grade-II and Health Inspector were on the same scale of pay and in the case of Lab Technician Grade-II, the Grade Pay was more than that of the post of Block Health Statistician. Further, the Writ Court, after taking note of the recommendation of the One Man Commission, allowed the writ petition, by order dated 29.06.2017, and directed the appellants to consider the case of the respondents, take steps to rectify the anomalies and refix the scale of pay of the respondents in tune with the recommendation of One Man Commission and pass appropriate orders, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶55

11. The Government acting on the directions of the learned Writ Court, issued G.O.Ms.No.329, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 28.09.2018, rejecting the request of the respondents. The respondents filed a contempt petition in Cont.P.(MD) No.622 of 2018 to punish the appellants for willful disobedience of the order and directions issued in the writ petition. Thereafter, the appellants filed a review application in Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.4 of 2019 before the learned Single Bench, which was dismissed by order dated 25.04.2019. The order passed in the review application is an elaborate order presumably because the appellants woke up and placed several information by way of an affidavit before the learned Writ Court, which has necessitated the learned Writ Court to examine the contentions and rendered an opinion. In the opinion of the learned Writ Court, as the required qualification of the post of Block Health Statistician is a Degree in Mathematics or Statistics, whereas the required qualification for the other posts, namely, Lab Technician Grade-I, Lab Technician Grade-II, Pharmacist, and Health Inspector Grade-I is Higher Secondary with a Diploma in Medical Lab Technology and those posts having been granted higher scale of pay and the post of Computor, later re-designated as Block Health Statistician, having been in the same scale of pay till 1998 and that the post was carrying higher scale of pay earlier, the revision of pay has to be effected in tune with the recommendations of the One Man Commission. Thus, aggrieved by the orders passed, the State is on appeal before us.

¶56

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

¶57

4/13

¶58

W.A.(MD) No.1188 of 2019

¶59

12. Mr.K.Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.A.Muthukaruppan, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the appellants, has reiterated the stand taken before the learned Writ Court both in the writ petition and review application and submitted that the One Man Commission has not recommended revision of scale of pay of the post held by the respondents and the interpretation given by the Court is not sustainable, more particularly, considering the nature of duties and responsibilities assigned to both the posts.

¶60

13. Further, it is submitted that if the interpretation given in the order is implemented, the Government will be compelled to extend pay parity to all the persons holding posts with identical scale of pay and the additional financial commitment of the State Exchequer per year will be approximately Rs.803 Crores and if all the sanctioned posts are taken into account, then it will be around Rs.1,111 Crores. Further, it is submitted that it is settled legal position that prescription of pay scales is a complex matter and the Courts would not interfere in pay fixation. Further, it is contended that the Government is bound to maintain equilibrium among the various categories of employees for the smooth functioning.

¶61

14. Per contra, Mr.K.N.Thampi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, sought to sustain the order passed in the writ petition.

¶62

15. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has invited our attention to a comparative table of time scales of pay filed in the typed set of papers. By referring to the tabulate statement, it is submitted that the scale of pay of Block Health Statistician was Rs.125-5-175 during First Pay Commission and the scale of pay of Pharmacist, namely, Rs.90-4-110-3-140, was much lesser to the scale of pay of Lab Technician Grade-I, namely, Rs.100-05-150 and Health Visitor (re-designated as Senior Health Nurse), namely, Rs.125-5-200.

¶63

16. It is further submitted that during Second Pay Commission, the scale of pay for the post of Block Health Statistician was revised to Rs.250-10-400, whereas the scale of pay for the posts of Pharmacist, Lab Technician Grade-I and Lab Technician Grade-II were in the lesser scale of pay and only the post of Health Visitor was fixed in the identical scale of pay as Block Health Statistician. Similarly, the revision of scales of pay recommended in the Fourth Pay Commission was referred to. It is submitted that only during the Fifth Pay Commission, the scale of pay was fixed at Rs.1200-2040 for the post of Block Health Statistician, whereas the scale of pay for the posts of Pharmacist, Lab Technician Grade-I, Lab Technician Grade-II was increased to Rs.1350-2200, Rs.1350 – 2200 and Rs.950-1500 respectively and the

¶64

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

¶65

5/13

¶66

W.A.(MD) No.1188 of 2019

¶67

scale of pay for the posts of Health Visitor and Health Inspector was increased to Rs.1200-2040 as that of the pay scale of Block Health Statistician.

¶68

17. It is further submitted that during the Sixth Pay Commission, the scale pay for the posts of Block Health Statistician was fixed at Rs.4000-100-6000, whereas for the posts of Pharmacist and Lab Technician Grade-I, it was increased to Rs.4500-125-7000 and the scale of pay for the post of Lab Technician Grade-II remained lesser than that of the scale of pay for the post of Block Health Statistician and the scales of pay for the posts of Health Visitor and Health Inspector were revised on par with the post of Block Health Statistician.

¶69

18. Further, it is submitted that during the Seventh Pay Commission, vide G.O.Ms.No.234, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 01.06.2009, the scale of pay for the post of Block Health Statistician was fixed at Rs.5200-20200 on par with the posts of Pharmacist, Lab Technician Grade-I and Lab Technician Grade-II. Subsequent to the report of One Man Commission, the scale of pay for the posts of Pharmacist, Lab Technician Grade-I, Lab Technician Grade-II and Health Inspector was increased to Rs.9300-34800, whereas, no change was effected in the scale of pay to the posts of Block Health Statistician and Health Visitor. Therefore, it is submitted that the comparative table clearly shows as to how the Block Health Statisticians, previously called as Computors, were drawing higher pay and the benefit of recommendations of the One Man Commission was erroneously denied to the Block Health Statisticians.

¶70

19. It is further submitted that the respondents were able to obtain information under the Right to Information Act, which shows that the Director of Family Welfare, Chennai, vide proceedings dated 18.09.2017 and 30.10.2017, has in no uncertain terms recommended the case of the respondents and also pointed out that they will stagnate without promotion and their pay scales have to be revised based on the recommendations of the One Man Commission. It is further submitted that following the order passed by the learned Single Bench, which is impugned in this writ appeal, the Principal Bench of this Court, in W.P.(MD) No.28951 of 2010, has allowed the writ petition by order dated 20.06.2018 granting similar relief and to the respondents' knowledge, no appeal has been filed by the Government against the said order.

¶71

20. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, in support of his contentions, placed reliance upon the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Joint Action Council of Service Doctors' Organisations and others vs. Union of India and another , reported in (1996) 7 SCC 256 ; State of U.P. and others vs. U.P.Sales Tax Officers Grade-II Association , reported in (2003) 6 SCC 250 and Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation vs. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶72

6/13

¶73

W.A.(MD) No.1188 of 2019

¶74

G.S.Uppal and others , reported in (2008) 7 SCC 375 .

¶75

21. We have heard Mr.K.Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.A.Muthukaruppan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the appellants and Mr.K.N.Thampi, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶76

22. Before we examine the correctness of the stand taken by the respondents praying for revision of scale of pay, we need to take note of the legal position, namely, jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with matters pertaining to pay fixation.

¶77

23. In State of West Bengal and another vs. West Bengal Minimum Wages Inspectors Association and others , reported in (2010) 5 SCC 225 , it has been held that the evaluation of duties and responsibilities of different posts and determination of the pay scales applicable to such posts and determination of parity in duties and responsibilities are complex executive functions, to be carried out by expert bodies. Explaining the functions of the Pay Commission, it was pointed out that it has two functions, namely, to revise the existing pay scale, by recommending revised pay scales corresponding to the pre-revised pay scales and secondly, to make recommendations for upgrading or downgrading posts resulting in higher pay scales or lower pay scales, depending upon the nature of duties and functions attached to those posts. It was further pointed out that the mere fact that at an earlier point of time, two posts were carrying the same pay scale does not mean that after the implementation of revision in pay scales, they should necessarily have the same revised pay scale.

¶78

24. In Deputy Director General of Geological Survey of India and another vs. R.Yadaiah and others , reported in (2001) 10 SCC 563 , it was held that ordinarily Court or Tribunal should not go into question of fitment of officers in a particular group or pay scale and leave those matters to the discretion and expertise of special commissions like Pay Commission and Court can interfere only on production of materials that there is some apparent error.

¶79

25. In Hukum Chand Gupta vs. Director General, ICAR and others , reported in 2012 (10) SCALE 479 , it was held that it is for the employer to categorize the posts and to prescribe the duties of each post. There cannot be any strait jacket formula for holding that two posts having the same nomenclature would have to be given the same pay scale. It was further held that prescription of pay scales on particular posts is a very complex exercise which can be assessed by the expert bodies like employer or Pay Commission and Courts would not normally venture to substitute its own opinion for the opinions rendered by the experts, as it lacks necessary expertise.

¶80

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

¶81

7/13

¶82

W.A.(MD) No.1188 of 2019

¶83

26. Similar view was expressed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar and others vs. Bihar Veterinary Association and others , reported in (2008) 11 SCC 60 .

¶84

27. The above are the decisions, which have been relied on by the learned Additional Advocate General.

¶85

28. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents had relied upon the decision in the case of U.P.Sales Tax Officers Grade II Association (supra), wherein, it was held that both posts, in the pre-revised pay scale, were in the same pay scale, in view of the nature of duties and functions of Trade Tax Officers, they are equal in rank to District Level Officers and have to be given revision of of pay.

¶86

29. It was argued that the State cannot plead financial difficulty to wriggle out of their obligation in paying appropriate scale of pay to the respondents / writ petitioners. Further, it was argued that once an anomaly is found in the pay scale given to a class of Government servants and such anomaly is rectified, it is not a new pay revision, but a correction of original pay revision, or an amendment to pay scale that has already been granted. Therefore, financial difficulty cannot be pleaded by the State. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision in the case of G.S.Uppal (supra).

¶87

30. Further, by relying on the decision in the case of Joint Action Council of Service Doctors' Organisations (supra), it is submitted that the right is a vested right and the same cannot be taken away.

¶88

31. Sofar as the decision in the case of U.P.Sales Tax Officers Grade II Association (supra), the Honourable Supreme Court, while considering the scope of judicial review in such matters, pointed out that the decision of expert bodies, like the Pay Commission, is not ordinarily subject to judicial review obviously because pay fixation is an exercise, which requires analysis of various aspects of the posts held in various services and nature of duties of the employees. This portion of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court would be sufficient to non-suit the respondents / writ petitioners. On facts, in the said case, it was found that not only the pre-revised pay scales of both posts, which was the subject matter of litigation, were identical, but it was found that the nature of duties and functions were identical and the posts were equivalent. Therefore, the said decision does not render any assistance to the case of the respondents.

¶89

32. Equally, the decision in the case of G.S.Uppal (supra), wherein also the Honourable Supreme Court has reiterated the scope https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of judicial review with a caveat that the Courts should interfere

¶90

8/13

¶91

W.A.(MD) No.1188 of 2019

¶92

with the administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity when they find such a decision to be unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant factors.

¶93

33. The decision in the case of Joint Action Council of Service Doctors' Organisations (supra) can be pressed into service only if the respondents are able to establish that a right is vested in them to seek for revision of scale of pay.

¶94

34. In the preceding paragraphs, while noting the submission of Mr.K.N.Thampi, learned counsel for the respondents, we have elaborately set out the pattern of pay fixation done during various Pay Commission recommendations. It is no doubt true that when the First Pay Commission recommendation was made, the pay scale of the Block Health Statistician was higher than the pay scale of Pharmacist, Lab Technician Grade-I and Lab Technician Grade-II. This position continued during the Second Pay Commission. In the Third Pay Commission recommendation, the pay scale of Block Health Statistician was equal to that of Lab Technician Grade-I and Health Visitor. In the Fourth Pay Commission recommendation, all the posts, except Lab Technician Grade-II, were fixed in the pay scale of Rs.705-1230. However, in the Fifth Pay Commission recommendation, the pay scale of Block Health Statistician was fixed at Rs.1200-2040 lesser than the pay scale of Pharmacist and Lab Technician Grade-I, which was fixed at Rs.1350-2200. This difference was not rectified and in the Sixth Pay Commission recommendation also, the pay scale of Block Health Statistician was lesser than that of the pay scale of Pharmacist and Lab Technician Grade-I. In the Seventh Pay Commission recommendation, which was issued in G.O.Ms.No.234, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 01.06.2009, the pay scale of Block Health Statistician, Pharmacist, Lab Technician Grade-I and Lab Technician Grade-II were all brought in the pay scale of Rs.5200-20200. The matter was referred to the One Man Commission to set right the pay anomaly, which ordered that there is no change for Block Health Statistician, but, accepted the plea of anomaly and revised the scale of pay to Rs.9300-34800 for the remaining four posts, namely, Pharmacist, Lab Technician GradeI, Lab Technician Grade-II and Health Inspector. These facts will clearly show that there has been variation in fixation of pay scale and only upto 1985, the post occupied by the respondents were drawing higher scale of pay and not thereafter. In such circumstances, can it be said that the respondents' pay also should be brought on par with the posts of Pharmacist, Lab Technician Grade-I and Lab Technician Grade-II.

¶95

35. The learned Single Bench, while allowing the writ petition and dismissing the review application, was guided by the fact that the post of Block Health Statistician was drawing higher pay upto the year 1985 and the required qualification for the post https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶96

9/13

¶97

W.A.(MD) No.1188 of 2019

¶98

of Block Health Statistician is a Degree in Mathematics or Statistics, whereas, the required qualification for the posts of Pharmacist, Lab Technician Grade-I and Lab Technician Grade-II, is Higher Secondary with a Diploma in Medical Lab Technology. Therefore, the learned Single Bench opined that the pay scale to the post of Block health Statistician has to be revised accordingly. Further, the Court opined that the observation of the One Man Commission that the posts do not carry same duty and responsibilities is incorrect, they were put on the same scale of pay by the Pay Commission earlier and prior to the One Man Commission and much earlier they were drawing higher pay. In our considered view stepping up of scale of pay needs to be done taking into consideration several factors.

¶99

36. The Honourable Supreme Court observed that it is a very complex exercise, which can be assessed by expert bodies, like employer or Pay Commission and Courts should not venture to substitute its own opinion for the opinions rendered by the experts. This is so because the Court lacks expertise on such issues. The caveat, which was added by the Honourable Supreme Court in G.S.Uppal (supra), was that interference in administrative decisions can be when the decisions are unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant factors.

¶100

37. To examine as to whether the case on hand would fall under anyone of these exceptions carved out by the Honourable Supreme Court in G.S.Uppal (supra), we have to look into the facts, which were placed before us, in particular with reference to the nature of job and educational qualification. The justification is on the following lines:

¶101

“(i) The job nature and educational qualification of the Block Health Statistician is only computing the family planning and birth and death details. But, the nature of work and educational qualification of the referred posts of Lab Technician Grade-I, Lab Technician Grade-II, Pharmacist and Health Inspector Grade-I are completely different.

¶102

(ii) Block Health Statistician is a entry level post and the referred posts of Lab Technician Grade-I, Lab Technician Grade-II and Health Inspector Grade-I are the promotional posts next to the entry level posts.

¶103

(iii) From 5 th pay commission, the Block Health Statistician were getting lesser pay than the other referred posts. Accordingly, their scale of pay was revised during Official

¶104

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

¶105

10/13

¶106

W.A.(MD) No.1188 of 2019

¶107

Committee 1998 and Official Committee 2009. Hence, there is no anomaly and the Block Health Statistician cannot be compared with the referred posts.”

¶108

38. Further, the appellants have stated that if the pay scale of the respondents are to be revised in the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800+G.P.Rs.4400, by bringing them on par with paramedical posts holding Diploma in specified Medical Technical qualification, it will distort the horizontal and vertical pay relativity among other similarly placed categories, such as Ministerial Assistant, Revenue Assistant, Assistant Statistical Investigator, Junior Inspector of Co-operative Societies, Junior Co-operative Auditor, Audit Assistant, Executive Officer Grade-III in H.R. & C.E., Executive Officer Grade-II in Town Panchayat. The appellants have also stated about financial outlay, which would be caused if the interpretation of the respondents are to be accepted. Further, strong reliance has been placed on the decision of the One Man Commission report and it is reiterated that the post of Block Health Statistician is not at all comparable to the posts of Pharmacist, Lab Technician Grade-I, Lab Technician Grade-II and Health Inspector and they cannot claim similar pay.

¶109

39. As pointed out by the Honourable Supreme Court, assessing nature of duties and responsibilities of two different posts for their equivalence is not an exercise that can be done under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The One Man Commission has examined the nature of duties and responsibilities and stated that the Block Health Statistician does not the same duty as the Pharmacist or Lab Technician. Admittedly, they possess a technical qualification, namely, Diploma in the specified Medical Technical field. Therefore, we cannot bring the case of the respondents into anyone of the exceptions carved out by the Honourable Supreme Court in G.S.Uppal (supra), as we find there is nothing to indicate that the decision of the appellants was either unreasonable, unjust or taken in ignorance of material and relevant factors. This leaves only one matter to be considered, namely, whether the decision can be interfered if it is prejudicial to a section of employees.

¶110

40. To strengthen his arguments, Mr.K.N.Thampi, learned counsel for the respondents, relied on the recommendations of the Director of Family Welfare, Chennai, dated 18.09.2017 and 30.10.2017. On perusal of these recommendations, we find that the ground reality has been pointed out by the Director of Family Welfare and how the persons working as Block Health Statistician would stagnate and how the vacancies in various categories have not been filled-up and being manned by these Block Health Statisticians. Nowhere in the recommendation, it has been stated that the nature of duties and responsibilities of the Block Health Statistician are

¶111

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

¶112

11/13

¶113

W.A.(MD) No.1188 of 2019

¶114

equivalent to that of Pharmacist, Lab Technician Grade-I and Lab Technician Grade-II. The educational qualification has not been stated to be equivalent. In such circumstances, much credence cannot be attached to the recommendation of the Director of Family Welfare. In any event, the recommendation of the Director of Family Welfare would not bind the Government and the Government have to take a final decision, which has been taken by accepting the recommendation of the expert body, namely, One Man Pay Anomaly Commission.

¶115

41. With regard to the issue in W.P.No.28951 of 2010, which was disposed of based on the orders impugned before us, the learned Additional Advocate General has produced a copy of G.O.Ms.No.378, Finance (Pay Cell) III Department, dated 28.11.2018, wherein the Government have considered the directions issued in W.P.No.28951 of 2010 and rejected the request.

¶116

42. Thus, for all the above reasons, we find that the orders passed in the writ petition and the orders passed in the review application, which stood merged with the orders passed in the writ petition, call for interference.

¶117

43. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed and the order, dated 29.06.2017, passed in W.P.(MD) No.3803 of 2011 is set aside. Consequently, the writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.3803 of 2011 is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶118

Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶119

// True Copy //

¶120

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶121

Krk

¶122

¶123

1.The Principal Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu Finance (Pay Cell) Department Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009

¶124