Dismissed

Kannan .K v. Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Madras HC23 Apr 2024WP(MD)/9965/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this special leave to abandon writ petition, the petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash an order fixing his pay and to be placed on par with similarly placed sanitary supervisors including 3% increment and arrears. The High Court dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Request for equal pay scale, monetary benefits, and arrears dismissed with no order for costs.

Kannan .K Vs Additional Chief Secretary to Government — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.9965 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 23.04.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.9965 of 2024

¶7

K.Kannan .. Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Department of Municipal Administration and Water Supply, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai.

¶10

The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Ezhilgam Annexe, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

¶11

The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai District. .. Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶13

India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for 1/10

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.(MD)No.9965 of 2024

¶16

the records pertaining to the proceedings of the respondent No.1 in

¶17

and by his letter No.11163/MaaNa4/2022-2, dated 15.12.2022 and quash the same and directing the respondents herein to fix the petitioner's pay in the scale of pay of 4800-10,000+GP1650 in accordance with the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.385 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 01.10.2010 with effect from 25.10.2011 on par with the similarly placed sanitary supervisors working in the third respondent corporation with all monetary benefits and arrears of amount due to the petitioner.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.G.M.Xavier For Respondents : Mr.J.Ashok Additional Government Pleader For R1 and R2

¶19

Mr.K.Sivabalan Standing Counsel for R3

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

By consent of both the parties, this writ petition is taken up

¶22

for final disposal.

¶23

2/10

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.(MD)No.9965 of 2024

¶26

2. Heard Mr.G.M.Xavier, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.J.Ashok, learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr.K.Sivabalan, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent No.3.

¶27

3. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the

¶28

order dated dated 15.12.2022 passed by the first respondent and directing the respondents herein to fix the petitioner's pay in the scale of pay of 4800-10,000 + GP1650 in accordance with the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.385 Finance (Pay cell) Department dated 01.10.2010 with effect from 25.10.2011 on par with the similarly placed sanitary supervisors working in the third respondent corporation with all monetary benefits and arrears of amount due to petitioner.

¶29

4. Mr.G.M.Xavier, the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶30

submitted that the petitioner has been given with the special time

¶31

3/10

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(MD)No.9965 of 2024

¶34

scale of pay consequent to the Government Orders in G .O.Ms.No. 385 Finance (pay cell) Department dated 01.10.2010 . The petitioner has been given with the said benefits and as of now, the petitioner is getting special time scale of pay. Insofar as the said aspect is concerned, there is no quarrel. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is also entitled to the equal pay as that of the other Government servants who were similarly placed like that of the petitioner. The petitioner has not been given with 3% increment as stipulated under G.O.Ms.No.385 dated 01.10.2010.

¶35

5. Mr.K.Sivabalan, learned Standing Counsel for the third

¶36

respondent submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any other benefits, as the Government has issued directions in G.O.Ms.No.113

¶37

dated 11.09.2014 to maintain the status quo. In the said Government Order, it is observed as under:

¶38

4/10

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.(MD)No.9965 of 2024

¶41

"3.... The Court has directed to issue necessary orders bringing them into the Special time scale of pay as per the above Government Order. While absorbing the consolidated pay employees and daily wage employees of the erstwhile local bodies merged with the Madurai Corporation, in G.O(Ms)No.116, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 19.12.2012, the Government have issued orders that the status quo of the above employees may be maintained since they have not been employed under any service rules.......

¶42

4. After careful examination, the Government have proposed to accept the proposal of the Commissioner of Madurai Corporation forwarded by the Commissioner of Municipal Administration for bringing the said two individuals Tvl.M.B.Basheer Mohammed S/o. Batcha, Melamadai Panchayat and K.Kannan S/o.Krishnan, Vandiyur Panchayat, erstwhile Panchayat workers, under Special Time Scale of Pay of Rs.1,300-3,000+300 G.P as per the G.O.

¶43

5/10

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.(MD)No.9965 of 2024

¶46

(Ms).No.385, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 01.10.2010 and order accordingly."

¶47

6. Mr.J.Ashok, learned Additional Government Pleader

¶48

submitted that in the impugned order, it has been stated that the petitioner is not entitled to get any pay revision and the G.O.Ms.No. 385 is not applicable to his case. He further submitted that the post by name 'Sanitary Supervisor' has not been found place in G.O.Ms.No.234 dated 01.06.2009 on the basis of which the petitioner claims parity. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to the pay revision as claimed by him.

¶49

7. No other interpretation can be given to the Government

¶50

Orders brought there with the meaning of the words employed in the said Government Order.

¶51

6/10

¶52

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

¶53

W.P.(MD)No.9965 of 2024

¶54

8. Mr.J.Ashok, learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that in the impugned order, it is clearly stated that the petitioner has already been given with the special time scale of pay with effect from 01.09.2014 consequent to the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.385 Finance (pay cell) Department dated 01.10.2010. Since the Government has issued directions in G.O.Ms.No.113 dated 11.09.2014 to maintain the status quo, the petitioner is not entitled to the pay revision as claimed by him.

¶55

9. In view of the above discussions, this Writ Petition is

¶56

dismissed . No costs.

¶57

23.04.2024

¶58

NCC: Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No PJL

¶59

7/10

¶60

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

¶61

W.P.(MD)No.9965 of 2024

¶62

¶63

Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Department of Municipal Administration and Water Supply, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai.

¶64

The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Ezhilgam Annexe, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

¶65

The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai District.

¶66

8/10

¶67

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

¶68

W.P.(MD)No.9965 of 2024

¶69

9/10

¶70

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

¶71

W.P.(MD)No.9965 of 2024

¶72

R.N.MANJULA, J.

¶73

PJL

¶74

W.P.(MD)No.9965 of 2024

¶75

23.04.2024

¶76

10/10

¶77

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

Kannan .K v. Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kannan .K v. Additional Chief Secretary to Government

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

Kohila a Vs The District Educational Officer (Primary)

Nn 184 Puliyal Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

S.Alphonse Mary Vs The Chief Educational Officer

Rajapandi S Vs State rep. by The Principal Secretary to Government

Aludhanoor Vs The Managing Director

Arjunan P Vs The Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited