Allowed

M.Saraswathy v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC4 Jan 2023WP/613/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court quashed the impugned order rejecting a school sweeper's claim for special time scale of pay under G.O.Ms.No.385, 2010. The Court held that since the appointment was temporary on consolidated wages, the petitioner was eligible for benefits by completing three years of service.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order of 28.09.2016; directed respondent to extend benefits of G.O.Ms.No.385 from 12.06.1991 and disburse arrears within four weeks.

M.Saraswathy Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.613 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 04.01.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

W.P.No.613 of 2017 and W.M.P.Nos.659 of 2017 & 18396 of 2018

¶7

M.Saraswathy ...Petitioner

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Finance Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶10

2.The Secretary, Rural Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶11

3.The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009. ...Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the 3^rd respondent's proceedings made in letter No. 2399/Ni.Va.2(2)/2016-1 dated 28.09.2016, to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to extend the benefit of Special Time Scale of Pay as per G.O.Ms.No.385, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated

¶13

1/8

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.No.613 of 2017

¶16

01.10.2010, by extending the special time scale of pay as provided therein, including arrears and prospective thereto.

¶17

For Petitioner : Ms.N.R.Jasmine Padma For Respondents : Mr.K.H.Ravikumar, Government Advocate

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Heard Ms.N.R.Jasmine Padma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.H.Ravikumar, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶20

Through an appointment order dated 12.06.1991, issued by the

¶21

Assistant Educational Officer, Solaiyarpettai in Na.Ka.No.483/90, the petitioner herein was temporarily appointed as a Sweeper on consolidated pay of Rs.70/-. When she had sought for grant of special time scale of pay in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.385, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 01.10.2010, her request was kept pending indefinitely, which prompted her to file W.P.No.33030 of 2015 and by an order dated 29.10.2015, this Court had directed the third respondent herein to consider the petitioner's request within a stipulated time. Accordingly, the present impugned order dated 28.09.2016 came to be passed, rejecting the petitioner's request, on the ground that since

¶22

2/8

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.No.613 of 2017

¶25

the petitioner was employed as a part-time employee, she would not be entitled

¶26

for the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.385. Challenging the same, the present writ

¶27

petition has been filed.

¶28

The only reason assigned by the third respondent for rejecting the

¶29

petitioner's request for grant of special time scale of pay is that she was a parttime employee. The petitioner has produced a copy of the appointment order

¶30

dated 12.06.1991, which reads as follows:-

¶31

cjtpf; fy;tp mYtyh; mYtyfk;. nrhiyahh;ngl;il/t/M/m/kh/

¶32

e/f/vz;/483-90/ ehs;/12/06/1991

¶33

bghUs: nrhiyahh;ngl;il Cuhl;rp xd;wpa gs;spfspy; Jg;g[wt[ gzpahsuhf epakdk;

¶34

bra;J Miz tH';fy; ? rhh;g[

¶35

ghh;it: tpz;zg;gjhuhpd; tpz;zg;gk;

¶36

nrhiyahh;ngl;il Cuhl;rp xd;wpa rhiyefh; bjhlf;f- eLepiyg; gs;spapy;

¶37

fPH;f;fz;ltiu Jg;g[wthsuhf epakdk; bra;J ,jd; K:yk; Miz tH';fyhfpwJ/

¶38

t/vz;/ gs;spapd; bgah; epakdk; bra;ag;gl;lgzpahsh; bgah; gs;spapy; nrUk; ehs; Cjpak;

¶39

1/ C/e/J/gs;sp. rhiyefh; jpUkjp/vk;/ru!;tjp gzpapy; nrh;e;j ehs;Kjy; U:/70/-

¶40

nkw;fz;l epakdk; Kw;wpYk; jw;fhypfkhdJ/ gzpf;fhyj;jpy; jtW bra;jhy; gzpePf;fk;

¶41

bra;ag;gLk; vd;W mwptpf;fyhfpwJ/

¶42

cjtp fy;tp mYtyh;. nrhiyahh;ngl;il. t/M/m/kh

¶43

3/8

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.No.613 of 2017

¶46

A perusal of the appointment order does not state that the petitioner's appointment was on part-time basis. On the other hand, the order states that the petitioner's appointment was temporary. The remuneration of Rs.70/- stated therein does not reveal whether it was on a consolidated basis or a part-time wages.

¶47

G.O.Ms.No.385, dated 01.10.2010, provides for grant of special time scale of pay for the Sweepers on daily wage basis or consolidated basis and who have completed 3 years of such service. Since the Government Order provides for grant of this special time scale of pay for both the daily wage Sweepers, as well as the consolidated wage Sweepers, the petitioner herein would be entitled for the benefit of the said Government Order.

¶48

Though such a specific ground has been taken in the affidavit that the petitioner was appointed on consolidated pay of Rs.940/- per month, the respondents have not produced the service register in connection with the petitioner's employment. As a matter of fact, when an opportunity was given to

¶49

4/8

¶50

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

¶51

W.P.No.613 of 2017

¶52

the respondents to produce the service register, the Block Development Officer, Solaiyarpettai, through written instructions to the learned Special Government Pleader dated 13.12.2022, has stated that since the petitioner works only for one hour in the morning, they are not maintaining a service register.

¶53

This Court does not appreciate the manner in which the payments have been made to a Sweeper in a School, without maintaining any records. In the absence of any record, this Court is inclined to accept the stand taken by the petitioner that she was initially appointed on consolidated pay of Rs.940/-, which was subsequently increased to Rs.1,020/-.

¶54

Since the respondents have failed to establish that the petitioner was employed on part-time basis and in consideration of the appointment order, which states that the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis on consolidated pay, this Court is inclined to extend the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.385, dated 01.10.2010.

¶55

5/8

¶56

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

¶57

W.P.No.613 of 2017

¶58

In the light of the above observations, the impugned order dated 28.09.2016 passed by the third respondent is quashed. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the third respondent herein to forthwith pass orders, extending the benefit of special time scale of pay in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.385, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 01.10.2010, on completion of 3 years of her services, with effect from 12.06.1991 and disburse the arrears of the pay to the petitioner. Such orders of disbursement shall be made atleast within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶59

The writ petition stands thus allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶60

04.01.2023

¶61

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order hvk

¶62

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

6/8

W.P.No.613 of 2017

1.The Secretary, Finance Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶67

2.The Secretary, Rural Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶68

3.The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶69

7/8

¶70

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

W.P.No.613 of 2017

M.S.RAMESH,J.

hvk

W.P.No.613 of 2017

¶75

04.01.2023

¶76

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

¶77

8/8

M.Saraswathy v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Saraswathy v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Jambulingam Vs The Chennai Metropolitan

S.Elizabeth Rani Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

A.Deivasigamani, Vs The Director of School

L.Kesavan Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

S.Perumal Vs The Chairman and Managing

K.Palaniappan (MHR079) Vs The Managing Director