P.Periyasamy Vs The State Government of Tamil nadu

The State Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Principal Secretary, Agriculture Production Commissioner, Secretariat, Fort St. Goerge, Chennai-600 009.

¶12

The State Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶13

The State Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Secretary, Human Resources Management, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.

¶14

The Director, Directorate of Agriculture, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

¶15

The Director, Directorate of Agriculture Marketing and Agri-Business, Guindy, Chennai 600 032.

¶16

__________ Page1 of 6

¶17

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

¶18

WP No. 10116 of 2022

¶19

The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, TNPSC Road, V.O.C Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-600 003.

¶20

..Respondents

¶21

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records passed by first respondent in G.O. (D) No.149 dated 17.09.2021 and to quash the same, consequently directing 1st respondent to fix PB-2 pay scale as per the Tamil Nadu Revised Pay Rules, 2017.

¶22

For Petitioner :	Mr.R.Swarnavel
For Respondents :	Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, Special Government Pleader for R1 to R5
	Mr.B.Vijay Standing Counsel for R6

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The present writ petition has been filed challenging order passed by first respondent in G.O. (D) No.149 dated 17.09.2021, whereby pursuant to orders of this Court in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.6000 of 2021 and etc. batch for

¶25

revision of their pay scale on par with similarly placed employees, the above Government Order came to be passed.

¶26

__________ Page2 of 6

¶27

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

¶28

WP No. 10116 of 2022

¶29

2. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner’s name has

¶30

also been included in the above Government Order inadvertently inasmuch as petitioner do not belong to class or category nor was grievance of petitioner similar to those who were considered in the said Government Order. He would however submit that petitioner also has a grievance regarding revision of his pay scale.

¶31

3. At this stage, when this Court suggested that petitioner may submit a representation with regard to his right for revision of pay scale, learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner would do so, to which learned counsel for respondents would submit that if any such representation is submitted by petitioner, they would consider and pass orders, in accordance with law, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶32

4. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to dispose of writ petition with following directions:

¶33

i) It is open to petitioner to submit a representation before the appropriate authority.

¶34

ii) In the said representation, it is open to petitioner to explain as to why and how their inclusion in G.O.(D) No.149 dated 17.09.2021 may not be appropriate while also setting up his case for revision of pay scale.

¶35

Page3 of 6

¶36

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

¶37

WP No. 10116 of 2022

¶38

iii) If such representation is made, appropriate authority shall consider

¶39

the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of

¶40

twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶41

iv) It is made clear that this Court has only recorded the submission and has not expressed anything on the merits of the submission so recorded by petitioner.

¶42