Dismissed

The Chennai Metropolitan v. the Chennai Metro Politan

Madras HC17 Aug 2023WP/12243/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by an employee union seeking direction to the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board to implement government orders revising pay scales and redesignating posts. The court held that the specific categories and posts mentioned in the government order did not exist in the Board, rendering the petition devoid of merits.

What the court decided

AI extract

The Chennai Metropolitan Vs the Chennai Metro… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.12243 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 17.08.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

W.P.No.12243 of 2012

¶7

The Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Officials and Employees Union rep. by its President N.John Selvaraj, 26, Fourth Main Nagar, Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Chennai 600 118 ... Petitioner Vs.

¶8

The Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, rep. by Managing Director, 1, Pumping Station Road, Chintadripet, Chennai 600 002 ... Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India p raying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to implement the orders of the Government of Tamilnadu in GO.Ms.No.338 Finance (Pay Cell) Dept. dated 26.08.2011 to the employees of skilled, semiskilled and Artisan category of the respondent revising their scale of pay, with selection grade Redesignate the post and Special grade.

¶10

1/8

¶11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶12

W.P.No.12243 of 2012

¶13

For Petitioner	: No appearance
For Respondent	: Mr.Krishna Ravindran, Standing Counsel

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This writ petition has been filed for direction to the respondent to implement the orders of the Government of Tamilnadu in GO.Ms.No.338 Finance (Pay Cell) Dept. dated 26.08.2011 to the employees of skilled, semiskilled and Artisan category.

¶16

It is seen that the Government of Tamilnadu constituted one

¶17

man commission to examine pay anomalies on the implementation of the recommendation of the Official Committee in the year 2009. In pursuant to the same, the petitioner / Union made a representation to revise the scale of pay of Grade-I and Grade-II Trade posts, Special Trade Posts and Supervisory Trade Posts and to bring all the technical posts into four groups and designate them as Junior Technical Officer, Assistant Technical Officer, Technical Officer and Supervisory Technical Officer. In pursuant to the same, the Government of Tamilnadu issued orders in

¶18

2/8

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

W.P.No.12243 of 2012

¶21

GO.Ms.No.338 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 26.08.2010 that all Heads of Departments and Local Bodies are directed to adhere to these orders scrupulously and to amend the Service Rules as per the Government Order. Therefore, the petitioner made representation to implement the Government Order to them.

¶22

On perusal of the counter filed by the respondent, revealed that the Government Order has been issued revising scale of pay of certain Technical posts such as Grade I and Grade II Trade posts, Special Trade Post and Supervisory Trade posts, etc. rationalizing the trade posts with revision in their scale of pay and change of nomenclature of the posts as follows:

¶23

“(i) To merge the Unskilled and Semi-skilled employees now existing in trade posts in the scale of pay from Rs.2550-3200 to Rs 27504400 (pre-revised) and to place such posts on a higher scale of pay of Rs. 3050-4590 (pre-revised) with corresponding revised scale of pay duly redesignating these posts as Unskilled

¶24

(ii) Consequent on the above upgraded scale of pay of Rs.3050 4500 (pre-revised) recommended to Unskilled and Semi-skilled the entry

¶25

3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

W.P.No.12243 of 2012

¶27

level Grade - Il trade posts may be placed one level above the existing scale of pay from Rs. 3050-4590 to Rs.3200-4900 (pre - revised) with corresponding revised scale of pay duly Re-designating the Grade-II trade posts as Skilled Assistant Grade-II

¶28

(iii) Considering one level jump recommended to Grade-II trade posts and also taking into account the "plus two" qualification prescribed for certain trade courses, the Grade-1 trade posts may be placed one level above the existing scale of pay from Rs 4000-6000 to Rs 4300-6000 (prerevised) with corresponding revised scale of pay duly re-designating the Grade-l trade posts as Skilled Assistant Grade-1

¶29

(iv) Consequent on the upgraded scale of pay recommended to Grade-l trade posts, the promotion posts to Grade-I trade posts may be placed one level higher than the existing scale of pay. Accordingly, the scale of pay of the promotion posts to Grade - I trade posts viz. Artisan Special / Assistant Foreman etc. may be revised from Rs 4300-6000 to Rs 4500-7000 with corresponding revised scale of pay duly recommending to re-designate these posts as Special Artisan

¶30

(v) The Supervisory technical posts presently in the scale of pay of Rs 4500- 7000 (pre-revised) such as Foreman (Mechanical), Maistry Chargeman (Mechanical / Electrical) Assistant Store Keeper, Tailoring Weaving Instructor. Boot Maistry, Soap Chemist, Phenyle Assistant and

¶31

4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

W.P.No.12243 of 2012

¶33

posts in Stationery & Printing Department, the requisite qualification for direct recruits is "Diploma". As all para - medical posts with Diploma qualification in the scale of pay of Rs.4500-7000 have upgraded at Rs 5000- 8000 (pre-revised) the supervisory Technical posts may also be revised with corresponding revised scale of pay duly re-designating these supervisory posts as Supervisor.”

¶34

These posts are not existing in the Board. There is no posts like unskilled, semi-skilled Grade-I & Grade-II under Trade Posts, Special Trade Posts and Supervisory Trade Posts in the Board. In fact, the respondent / Board is revising the scale of pay of its employees as and when the Government revises the scale of pay in accordance with the Board's designation, nomenclature considering duties and responsibilities, after detailed and careful analysation of each and every category. Further, there is no merging of the posts of Wireman Grade-I, EPM Grade-II Electrician and EO(LT) with Semiskilled and Skilled Artisan was done consequent to the issue of the Government Order. There is no posts like Wireman Grade-I, EPM Grade-II existing in the respondent / Board. In fact, the respondent / Board already implemented revision in scale of pay to common category existing in the Government and also in the

¶35

5/8

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

W.P.No.12243 of 2012

¶38

respondent / Board with same duties and responsibilities, nomenclature, qualification etc. like Typist, Junior Assistant, Assistant and Steno Typist Grade-III, Driver and Telephone Operator based on the Government Orders. Therefore, it is not feasible for the respondent / Board to implement GO.Ms.No.338 Finance (Pay Cell) Dept. dated 26.08.2011 to the employees.

¶39

Therefore, the prayer sought for in this writ petition cannot be granted. As such, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

17.08.2023

¶41

Internet: Yes Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order lok

¶42

6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

W.P.No.12243 of 2012

¶44

7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

W.P.No.12243 of 2012

¶46

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

¶47

lok

¶48

¶49

1.Managing Director, The Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board,

¶50

1, Pumping Station Road, Chintadripet, Chennai 600 002

¶51

2. The Government Advoate, High Court, Madras.

W.P.No.12243 of 2012

17.08.2023

8/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

The Chennai Metropolitan v. the Chennai Metro Politan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The Chennai Metropolitan v. the Chennai Metro Politan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.T.Iyappan Vs Government of Tamilnadu

K.Iraivan, Mandappam, Vs the Presiding Officer

Mrs. Roselin Metilda Vs the Director of Teacher

V.Radhigha Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

B.S.Sujatha Vs the Chairman

A.Rajasekar, Vs Union of India