K.Anand, Vs the Commissioner

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records from the file of the first respondent made in Letter No.25256 /B6/2011, dated 10.02.2012, and quash the same and further direct the first respondent to grant salary and other pay benefits retrospectively on par with Renuka Devi, Backer, working as Lab Assistant, in the second respondent Polytechnic.

¶13

_____________ Page 1 of 5_

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.No.18039 of 2012

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Guru Prasad, for M/s.SU.Srinivasan

¶17

For Respondents : Ms.S.Indhu Bala, Spl. Govt. Pleader.

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner herein, who was initially appointed as Peon on 01.07.1980 in the second respondent college, was subsequently promoted as Unskilled Assistant on 06.03.1987, and, thereafter, further promoted as Skilled Assistant with effect from 19.06.1995. He retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2010. Therefore, he made a claim for payment of salary on par with one Ms.Renuka Devi.

¶20

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner and as stated in the affidavit filed support of the Writ Petition, Ms.Renuka Devi was initially appointed as Baker in the second respondent college and subsequently, on closure of the Baker Department, she was asked to discharge the duties and responsibilities of post of Lab Assistant. The petitioner also discharged the functions of Lab Assistant along with the said Renuka Devi and, therefore, he should have been paid salary on par with Renuka Devi. As the respondents failed to consider the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary on par with Ms.Renuka Devi and the same was rejected

¶21

Page 2 of 5

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.No.18039 of 2012

¶24

through the impugned letter, dated 10.02.2012, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.

¶25

The first respondent has filed a counter, contending that Ms.Renuka Devi was initially appointed as Baker and, in view of closure of Baking and Confectionary Department in second respondent college, the services of Renuka Devi were utilised as Lab Assistant, without reduction of her pay.

¶26

In view of the above, it is evident that the petitioner was holding the post of Unskilled Assistant as on the date of his superannuation and whereas Ms.Renuka Devi was holding the post of Baker. The factual aspects are not in dispute. In the absence of any dispute with regard to factual aspects, the petitioner, who worked as Unskilled Assistant, as against Ms.Renuka Devi, who was initially appointed as Baker, and retired in the said post, this Court does not find any error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the first respondent. Further, the claim that was made by the petitioner is also belated and as such the same is liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches also.

¶27