This court dismissed a writ petition challenging a government order rejecting a supervisor's claim for a revised pay scale. The court held that the petitioner did not explain the delay in making the representation and since he retired without further pursuing the matter, the writ petition lacked merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.12.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
W.P.No.14926 of 2007
B.M.S. Shanmugam ...Petitioner
.Vs.
1. The Special Secretary to Government,
Finance (Pay Cell) Department,
(One Man Commission), Secretariat,
Chennai – 600009.
2. The Secretary to Government,
Information and Tourism Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600009.
3. The Director,
Information and Tourism Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600009.
4. The Principal,
Film and Television Institute of Tamilnadu,
Taramani,
Chennai – 600113. ...Respondents
PRAYER : Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the fourth respondent herein in F.No.1.313/m3/2005 dated 23.09.2005, quash the same and direct the respondents herein to fix the revised pay scale after rectifying the disparity drawn by the pay Commission.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.V.Karthikeyana
For Respondents: Mr.P.Chinna Durai [R1 to R3] Additional Government Pleader No appearance [R4]
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the fourth respondent in F.No.1.313/m3/2005 dated 23.09.2005, quash the same and direct the respondents to fix the revised pay scale after rectifying the disparity drawn by the pay Commission.
supervisor from 4300-6000 to 4500-7000. Therefore, the Association made the representation, since the petitioner is also entitled to draw the salary at a rate of Rs.5000-8000 but the fourth respondent passed the order stating that the representation made by the petitioner was delayed and the claim was made after five years.
He would further submit that the Association made the representation on behalf of the employees seeking revised pay. However, the petitioner's representation seeking revised pay stating that he is also entitled to draw the salary at a rate of Rs.5000-8000 was rejected by the fourth respondent vide impugned order dated 23.09.2005 on the ground that the said representation was submitted after five years and due to belated claim, the same cannot be sent for approval before the Government.
He would further state that since the Technicians Union had already given petition for revised pay scale and the Department of Information and Public Relations, by letter dated 15.09.2000, communicated to the 4th respondent that the representation made by the Union had been sent to the Government for revised scale of pay and therefore, the petitioner has not made separate request before the respondents at that point of time. However, till his retirement, he could not get revised pay scale. Since the Union followed the matter, the petitioner did not pursue. Thereafter only, he came to know that his representation was not considered and the Union's representation, seeking revised scale of pay, was not recommended to the Government. As such, till his retirement, his pay scale was not revised. Therefore, the petitioner filed present writ petition.
According to the petitioner, there is no delay since Union already taken care of the issue and pursued the matter, the petitioner has not filed individual representation at the earliest point of time. However, by representation dated 20.04.2005, 25.05.2005 and 25.07.2005, the petitioner sought revised scale of pay, and there is no delay in the said claim. Further, solely on the ground of delay, the benefit which has to be granted to the petitioner cannot be rejected. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the respondents may be directed to revise the scale of the petitioner.
held the post of Supervisor. The post of Supervisor cannot be treated on par with that of Instructor/Demonstrator and therefore, petitioner's claim for revised pay scale of Rs.5000150-8000 has been rejected.
It is further submitted that the representations given by the petitioner vide letters dated 20.04.2005 and 25.07.2005 were examined and the petitioner was requested to furnish the details of correspondence made in the issue immediately. The petitioner however failed to submit the relevant copies to the office and stated that his Senior Supervisors handled the connected files and that he is proceeding the matter since the other Supervisors already retired. However, the petitioner has not disclosed any further details and the decision regarding revised pay scale was informed to the Principal, by the Government in the year 2001 itself and his fresh representation was submitted in the year 2005 after a long gap and therefore, it was considered as belated and on that ground, his representations were rejected vide impugned order dated 23.09.2005 and there is no merit in this writ petition.
representation and also for the reason that the Union has not filed any writ petition and now the petitioner attained superannuation and while in service, the petitioner neither made further representation for pursuing the matter nor challenged the G.O, this Court is of the view that no merits in this Writ Petition and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Special Secretary to Government,
Finance (Pay Cell) Department,
(One Man Commission), Secretariat,
Chennai – 600009.
2. The Secretary to Government,
Information and Tourism Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600009.
3. The Director,
Information and Tourism Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600009.
4. The Principal,
Film and Television Institute of Tamilnadu,
Taramani,
Chennai – 600113.
+1cc to Mr.S.V.Karthikeyan, Advocate, S.R.No.39247
W.P.No.14926 of 2007
ln (co)
rr ii (05/02/2021)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's claim for revised pay scale based on the One Man Commission report is barred by alleged delay.
Whether the petitioner was entitled to the higher pay scale of an Instructor/Demonstrator despite holding the post of Supervisor.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
B.M.S. Shanmugam
The Special Secretary to Government, Finance (Pay Cell) Department
The Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department
The Director, Information and Tourism Department
The Principal, Film and Television Institute of Tamilnadu
P. Velmurugan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
