V.A Srinivasan Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

the respondents 2 and 3 to re-fix the petitioners pay by adopting 2.57 multiplier/matrix on par with 7th pay revision from the date of promotion i.e. 24.02.2017 with subsequent increments and revise his terminal benefits and pension accordingly in the light of the order passed by this Honble Court in W.P.(MD)No.3609 of 2020 dated 20.06.2023 which was upheld by the Division Bench in W.A. (MD)No.1099 of 2024 dated 04.07.2024, within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatachalam For R1 : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar Special Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.Dakshayani Reddy Senior Counsel for Mr.Madhuir Donti Reddy For R3 : Mr.Ferlin Castro, Standing Counsel

¶20

W.P(MD)No.15 of 2026:-

¶21

Chandra Bose ... Petitioner

¶22

Vs

¶23

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶24

2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation (TNSTC), V.M Chathiram, K.T.C Nagar, Tirunelveli 627 011.

¶25

2/25

¶26

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

¶27

W.P(MD)Nos.35331 of 2025, 15,34,80,114,1407, 1147 of 2026

¶28

3.The General Manager,

¶29

Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation (TNSTC), Nagercoil Region, Rani Thottam, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶30

4.The Administrator, TNSTC Employees Pension Fund Trust, Office of the SETC Head Office, Thiruvalluvar House, Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002. ...Respondents

¶31

PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2nd Respondent vide proceedings in Letter No. 1006/Law-09/TNSTC(Tvl) Naagar/2025 dated 04.12.2025 and Quash the same as illegal, and consequently direct the Respondents to re-fix the pay of the Petitioner by adopting the 2.57 multiplier/matrix on par with the 7th Pay Commission revision from the date of promotion and revise all other retirement benefits, including pension, in the light of the order passed in W.P.(MD).No. 3609 of 2020 dated 20.06.2023, which was confirmed by the Division Bench in WA(MD) No.1099 of 2024, dated 04.07.2024, within a stipulated time that may be fixed by this Court.

¶32

3/25

¶33

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

¶34

W.P(MD)Nos.35331 of 2025, 15,34,80,114,1407, 1147 of 2026

¶35

For Petitioner: Mr.R.Karunanidhi For R1 : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh Additional Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.Dakshayani Reddy Senior Counsel for Mr.Madhuir Donti Reddy For R3 : Mr.Ferlin Castro, Standing Counsel For R4 : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, Standing Counsel

¶36

W.P(MD)No.34 of 2026:-

¶37

Rajapandian ... Petitioner

¶38

Vs

¶39

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶40

2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation (TNSTC), V.M Chathiram, K.T.C Nagar, Tirunelveli 627 011.

¶41

3.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation (TNSTC), Nagercoil Region, Rani Thottam, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶42

4.The Administrator, TNSTC Employees Pension Fund Trust, Office of the SETC Head Office, Thiruvalluvar House, Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002. ...Respondents

¶43

4/25

¶44

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

¶45

PRAYER:

¶46

W.P(MD)Nos.35331 of 2025, 15,34,80,114,1407, 1147 of 2026

¶47

PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2nd Respondent vide proceedings in Letter No. 1006/Law-09/TNSTC(Tvl) Naagar/2025 dated 04.12.2025 and Quash the same as illegal, and consequently direct the Respondents to re-fix the pay of the Petitioner by adopting the 2.57 multiplier/matrix on par with the 7th Pay Commission revision from the date of promotion and revise all other retirement benefits, including pension, in the light of the order passed in W.P.(MD).No. 3609 of 2020 dated 20.06.2023, which was confirmed by the Division Bench in WA(MD) No.1099 of 2024, dated 04.07.2024, within a stipulated time that may be fixed by this Court.

¶48

For Petitioner: Mr.R.Karunanidhi For R1 : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar Special Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.Dakshayani Reddy Senior Counsel for Mr.Madhuir Donti Reddy For R3 : Mr.Ferlin Castro, Standing Counsel For R4 : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, Standing Counsel

¶49

W.P(MD)No.80 of 2026:- Stephen ... Petitioner

¶50

Vs

¶51

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶52

5/25

¶53

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

¶54

W.P(MD)Nos.35331 of 2025, 15,34,80,114,1407, 1147 of 2026

¶55

2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation (TNSTC), V.M Chathiram, K.T.C Nagar, Tirunelveli 627 011.

¶56

3.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation (TNSTC), Nagercoil Region, Rani Thottam, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶57

4.The Administrator, TNSTC Employees Pension Fund Trust, Office of the SETC Head Office, Thiruvalluvar House, Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002. ...Respondents

¶58

PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2nd Respondent vide proceedings in Letter No. 1006/Law-09/TNSTC(Tvl) Naagar/2025 dated 04.12.2025 and Quash the same as illegal, and consequently direct the Respondents to re-fix the pay of the Petitioner by adopting the 2.57 multiplier/matrix on par with the 7th Pay Commission revision from the date of promotion and revise all other retirement benefits, including pension, in the light of the order passed in W.P.(MD).No.

¶59

6/25

¶60

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

¶61

W.P(MD)Nos.35331 of 2025, 15,34,80,114,1407, 1147 of 2026

¶62

3609 of 2020 dated 20.06.2023, which was confirmed by the Division Bench in WA(MD) No.1099 of 2024, dated 04.07.2024, within a stipulated time that may be fixed by this Court.

¶63

For Petitio	ner: Mr.R.Karunanidhi
For R1	: Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar
	Special Government Pleader
For R2	: Mr.Dakshayani Reddy Senior Counsel for
	Mr.Madhuir Donti Reddy
For R3	: Mr.Ferlin Castro, Standing Counsel
For R4	: Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, Standing Counsel

¶64

W.P(MD)No.114 of 2026:-

¶65

Sreekandan ... Petitioner

¶66

Vs

¶67

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶68

2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation (TNSTC), V.M Chathiram, K.T.C Nagar, Tirunelveli 627 011.

¶69

3.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation (TNSTC), Nagercoil Region, Rani Thottam, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶70

7/25

¶71

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

¶72

W.P(MD)Nos.35331 of 2025, 15,34,80,114,1407, 1147 of 2026

¶73

4.The Administrator,

¶74

TNSTC Employees Pension Fund Trust, Office of the SETC Head Office, Thiruvalluvar House, Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002. ...Respondents

¶75

PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2nd Respondent vide proceedings in Letter No. 1006/Law-09/TNSTC(Tvl) Naagar/2025 dated 04.12.2025 and Quash the same as illegal, and consequently direct the Respondents to re-fix the pay of the Petitioner by adopting the 2.57 multiplier/matrix on par with the 7th Pay Commission revision from the date of promotion and revise all other retirement benefits, including pension, in the light of the order passed in W.P.(MD).No. 3609 of 2020 dated 20.06.2023, which was confirmed by the Division Bench in WA(MD) No.1099 of 2024, dated 04.07.2024, within a stipulated time that may be fixed by this Court.

¶76

For Petitioner: Mr.R.Karunanidhi For R1 : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar Special Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.Dakshayani Reddy Senior Counsel for Mr.Madhuir Donti Reddy For R3 : Mr.Ferlin Castro, Standing Counsel For R4 : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, Standing Counsel

¶77

8/25

¶78

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

¶79

W.P(MD)Nos.35331 of 2025, 15,34,80,114,1407, 1147 of 2026

¶80

W.P(MD)No.1407 of 2026:-

¶81

Narayana Pillai ... Petitioner

¶82

Vs

¶83

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶84

2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation (TNSTC), V.M Chathiram, K.T.C Nagar, Tirunelveli 627 011.

¶85

3.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation (TNSTC), Nagercoil Region, Rani Thottam, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶86

4.The Administrator, TNSTC Employees Pension Fund Trust, Office of the SETC Head Office, Thiruvalluvar House, Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002. ...Respondents

¶87

PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order

¶88

9/25

¶89

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

¶90

W.P(MD)Nos.35331 of 2025, 15,34,80,114,1407, 1147 of 2026

¶91

passed by the 2nd Respondent vide proceedings in Letter No. 1006/Law-09/TNSTC(Tvl) Naagar/2025 dated 04.12.2025 and Quash the same as illegal, and consequently direct the Respondents to re-fix the pay of the Petitioner by adopting the 2.57 multiplier/matrix on par with the 7th Pay Commission revision from the date of promotion and revise all other retirement benefits, including pension, in the light of the order passed in W.P.(MD).No. 3609 of 2020 dated 20.06.2023, which was confirmed by the Division Bench in WA(MD) No.1099 of 2024, dated 04.07.2024, within a stipulated time that may be fixed by this Court.

¶92

For Petitio	ner: Mr.R.Karunanidhi
For R1	: Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar
	Special Government Pleader
For R2	: Mr.Dakshayani Reddy Senior Counsel for
	Mr.Madhuir Donti Reddy
For R3	: Mr.K.Ramaiah, Standing Counsel
For R4	: Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, Standing Counsel

¶93

W.P(MD)No.1147 of 2026:- Gnana Seelan ... Petitioner

¶94

Vs

¶95

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶96

2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation (TNSTC), V.M Chathiram,

¶97

10/25

¶98

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

¶99

W.P(MD)Nos.35331 of 2025, 15,34,80,114,1407, 1147 of 2026

¶100

K.T.C Nagar, Tirunelveli 627 011.

¶101

3.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation (TNSTC), Nagercoil Region, Rani Thottam, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶102

4.The Administrator, TNSTC Employees Pension Fund Trust, Office of the SETC Head Office, Thiruvalluvar House, Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002. ...Respondents

¶103

PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2nd Respondent vide proceedings in Letter No. 1006/Law-09/TNSTC(Tvl) Naagar/2025 dated 04.12.2025 and Quash the same as illegal, and consequently direct the Respondents to re-fix the pay of the Petitioner by adopting the 2.57 multiplier/matrix on par with the 7th Pay Commission revision from the date of promotion and revise all other retirement benefits, including pension, in the light of the order passed in W.P.(MD).No. 3609 of 2020 dated 20.06.2023, which was confirmed by the Division Bench in WA(MD) No.1099 of 2024, dated 04.07.2024,

¶104

11/25

¶105

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

¶106

W.P(MD)Nos.35331 of 2025, 15,34,80,114,1407, 1147 of 2026

¶107

within a stipulated time that may be fixed by this Court.

¶108

For Petiti	oner: Mr.R.Karunanidhi
For R1	: Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar Special Government Pleader
For R2	: Mr.Dakshayani Reddy Senior Counsel for
	Mr.Madhuir Donti Reddy
For R3	: Mr.Ferlin Castro, Standing Counsel
For R4	: Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, Standing Counsel C O M M ON O R D E R

¶109

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners,

¶110

who have been appointed in worker category in the respondent Corporation initially and promoted subsequently to the managerial cadre on 29.02.2016 and 24.02.2017, claiming higher scale of pay.

¶111

2.The wage revision for the workers in the respondent transport Corporation is governed by the settlement under 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which is made on completion of every 3 years. On the other hand, the managerial cadre and the supervisory cadres are governed by the Pay Commission revisions adopted by the Government once in every 10 years. The petitioners have approached this Court that since they were promoted to managerial

¶112

12/25

¶113

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

¶114

W.P(MD)Nos.35331 of 2025, 15,34,80,114,1407, 1147 of 2026

¶115

cadre, pay commission benefits were not provided to them and therefore they are entitled for benefits as per the pay commission on revision of scale of pay. As per pay commission revision, the multiplying factor of 2.57 has to be applied and therefore all these writ petitions have been filed claiming revision of scale of pay as per 2.57 multiplier.

¶116

3.On the other hand, the Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has opposed the writ petitions on the ground of laches and claimed that the petitioners have already enjoyed the benefits under the wage settlement of the year 2013 and that they are not entitled for multiplier, as per the pay commission. It is further submitted that in a similar claim, a Division Bench of this Court has appointed a retired Judge Hon'ble Mr.Justice E. Padmanabhan, as Arbitrator to resolve the dispute and the Hon’ble Arbitrator, by his award dated 03.05.2018 has held that the workers, whose wages have been revised periodically once in every three years cannot compare themselves with the managerial/ supervisory

¶117

13/25

¶118

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

¶119

W.P(MD)Nos.35331 of 2025, 15,34,80,114,1407, 1147 of 2026

¶120

cadre, whose wages are only revised once in every 10 years and held that they would be entitled to the 2.44 multiplier and not the 2.57 multiplier. He further submits that the 2.57 multiplier was introduced to the Government employees by virtue of G.O.Ms No.303 dated 11.10.2017 and the said Government order is only applicable to the employees who are in the supervisory cadre as on 01.01.2016. The petitioners having migrated from the worker category to the supervisory category after 01.01.2016 cannot claim the 2.57 multiplier factor.

¶121

4.This Court considered the rival submissions and

¶122

perused the materials.

¶123

5.The respondent Corporation has two types of

¶124

employees. Workmen covered by the settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the employees in the supervisory/ managerial cadre governed by the Pay Commission benefits. A multiplier of 2.57 was fixed in respect of managerial cadre as per the

¶125

14/25

¶126

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

¶127

7 th

¶128

W.P(MD)Nos.35331 of 2025, 15,34,80,114,1407, 1147 of 2026

¶129

7^th Pay Commission, which came into effect on 01.01.2016. When it

¶130

was proposed that a multiplier of 2.44 would be fixed in respect of

¶131

the workers, as per the 13^th wage settlement entered on 04.01.2018, some workers’ unions went on strike demanding the same multiplier as that of the pay commission and therefore, the matter was referred to the retired Judge Honourable Mr.Justice E. Padmanabhan/ Arbitrator, to resolve the issue as to which multiplier would be applicable to the workers. The main conclusions of the Arbitral award dated 03.05.2018 are extracted as under:

¶132

“ 127. In the result, the Arbitral Tribunal record its findings and conclusion, on the two issues referred as under:

¶133

1. The demand of workmen employed in the eight Transport corporations to revise their wages by applying the multiplier factor of 2.57 instead of 2.44 is not at all justified and deserves to be negatived.

¶134

2. As the claimants have already been conferred with the benefits in terms of the settlement dated 4.1.2018, which factually works out equally to applying the factor of 2.57, no further benefit or claim is to be conferred on the claimants / Workmen.”

¶135

15/25

¶136

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

¶137

W.P(MD)Nos.35331 of 2025, 15,34,80,114,1407, 1147 of 2026

¶138

A reading of the arbitral award makes it clear that providing 2.57 multiplier would be improper only if the employes have already availed the benefits under the 2018 wage settlement.

¶139

6.When issues arose as to what would be the multiplier

¶140

for the workers covered under the 12(3) settlement but promoted to managerial cadre on or after 01.01.2016, the State Government issued GO (Ms.) No.220, Transport (C-1) Department dated 23.07.2018, wherein, a multiplier of 2.44 was fixed for such employees. However, the State Government also decided to set up a Committee headed by the Deputy Secretary (IAS), Transport Department, to explore as to whether 2.57 multiplier could be applied to the above group of employees in light of representations by Associations. As per the report of this committee and by also considering the Arbitral award, dated 03.05.2018, G.O(Ms.) No.330, Transport (C-1) Department dated 31.10.2018 was issued by the State Government and the relevant portions are extracted as under:

¶141

“ 5. Hence the committee has concluded that the existing benefit allowed in G.O.(Ms)No.220, Transport (C.1)

¶142

16/25

¶143

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

¶144

W.P(MD)Nos.35331 of 2025, 15,34,80,114,1407, 1147 of 2026

¶145

Department, dated 23.07.2018 ie., applying 2.44 multiplier factor to the Technical / Administrative Supervisory category employees who have been promoted and migrated to Government scale of pay pattern between 01.01.2016 and 31.08.2016 as well as after 01.09.2016 (ie., after getting the benefit of wage settlement, 2016) is reasonable and the same may be continued.

¶146

6. The Government after careful examination has decided to accept the report of the committee in para 4 and 5 above and direct the Managing Directors of all State Transport Undertakings to continue the existing benefit allowed in G.O. (Ms)No.220, Transport (C.1) Department, dated 23.07.2018, ie., applying 2.44 multiplier factor to the Technical / Administrative Supervisory category employees who have been promoted and migrated to Government scale of pay pattern between 01.01.2016 and 31.08.2016 as well as after 01.09.2016 (ie., after getting the benefit of wage settlement, 2016) and to fix the pay of the above category of employees accordingly.”

¶147

7.An employee, who was promoted on 04.03.2017 and

¶148

provided with 2.44 multiplier has challenged the above Government order in WP(MD) No.3609 of 2020 and this Court, vide order dated 20.06.2023 has held as under:

¶149

17/25

¶150

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

¶151

W.P(MD)Nos.35331 of 2025, 15,34,80,114,1407, 1147 of 2026

¶152

“6. A reading of the reasons set out in the award also indicates that the Hon'ble Arbitrator was clearly of the view that allowing 2.57 multiplier factor to the employees who have already availed the benefit of 2.44 factor as per 2016 wage settlement would not be proper. I posed a specific question to the respondents if the petitioner had been granted the benefit of 2016 wage settlement. The writ petitioner in his affidavit had clearly stated that he had not been granted the benefit of the 2016 wage settlement. In the counter affidavit, it has been implicitly conceded that the petitioner was not given the benefit of the said wage settlement. This is too obvious. It does not require any concession from the respondents. Though the 2016 wage settlement was notionally made applicable with effect from 01.09.2016, the monetary benefit was given only with effect from 01.09.2017. The petitioner admittedly was promoted on 04.03.2017 itself. Therefore, he was excluded from the applicability of the monetary benefit of the 2016 wage settlement. If the 2016 wage settlement was applied to the petitioner, he could not have been given the benefit of 2.57 multiplier. In as much as the petitioner was not given such benefit, the petitioner should also be granted the very same multiplier.”

¶153

8.The above order was confirmed by a Division Bench

¶154

of this Court in WA(MD) 1099 of 2024 vide order dated 04.07.2024 and the relevant portions are extracted as under:

¶155

18/25

¶156

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

¶157

W.P(MD)Nos.35331 of 2025, 15,34,80,114,1407, 1147 of 2026

¶158

“ 9.In the instant case, the Writ Petitioner/first respondent, who was originally appointed as Clerk on 16.06.1980, was promoted from the post of Senior Assistant to the post of Superintendent on 04.03.2017. The vehement contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that since 2016 wage settlement was made applicable with effect from 01.09.2016 and the first respondent was promoted on 04.03.2017 itself, he is covered under G.O(Ms)No.330, dated 31.10.2018 and therefore, the pay can be fixed only by adopting 2.44 multiplier, is liable to be rejected for the simple reason that even though the 2016 wage settlement was made applicable with effect from 01.09.2016, the monetary benefits of the 2016wage settlement was given effect to only from 01.09.2017. By the date on which, 2016-wage settlement was effected, ie., on 01.09.2017, the first respondent/Writ Petitioner had already been promoted on 04.03.2017 itself. In other words, only after the first respondent/Writ Petitioner got promotion on 04.03.2017, the 2016-wage settlement was given effect monetarily from 01.09.2017. Since on the date of giving effect of the 2016-wage settlement, the Writ Petitioner had got promotion, he was not given the benefits of the 2016wage settlement. ”

¶159

A Special Leave Petition was preferred against the

¶160

order of the Division Bench and the same was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 11.11.2024.

¶161

19/25

¶162

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

¶163

W.P(MD)Nos.35331 of 2025, 15,34,80,114,1407, 1147 of 2026

¶164

10.Therefore, it is clear that when deciding on the multiplier to be applied, the key consideration is whether the employee has actually received the benefits of the wage settlement of the year 2018 or not. In order to determine the same, the reference date is 01.09.2017 (i.e.), the date, on which the monetary benefits were actually paid as per the wage settlement. If the employee is promoted to managerial cadre before this date, then the employee would not have received the benefits of the wage settlement and hence they would be entitled to a multiplier of 2.57. If they are promoted after this date and received the benefits of the wage settlement, then they would be covered under G.O(Ms.) 330, Transport (C-1) Department dated 31.10.2018 and their multiplier would be fixed at 2.44.

¶165

11.When the above government orders have fixed the

¶166

receipt of benefits under the 2018 wage settlement as the reference point to decide the multiplier, the contention of the respondents that

¶167

20/25

¶168

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

¶169

W.P(MD)Nos.35331 of 2025, 15,34,80,114,1407, 1147 of 2026

¶170

the benefits under the 2013 wage settlement was already received and hence the employees are not entitled for 2.57 multiplier cannot be accepted.

¶171

12.This court has also decided a similar issue in a batch

¶172

of writ petitions in WP(MD) Nos. 35108 to 35122 of 2025 dated

¶173

06.01.2026 and the relevant portions are extracted as under:

¶174

“7.The Arbitrator has rejected the claim for revision of pay @ 2.57 multiplier, since the petitioners therein availed the benefits of settlement of the year 2010, 2013, 2016 and 2018. The petitioners claim that they have not availed the benefit of settlement of the year 2018. Therefore, they will not come under that category.

¶175

8.Since this Court has already granted the relief to the similarly placed persons, who have been promoted in between 01.01.2016 to 31.10.2018, which has also been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, these writ petitions are allowed.

¶176

9.The petitioners herein, who have been promoted in between 01.01.2016 and 31.10.2018, have not availed wage revision as per wage settlement dated 04.01.2018. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the revised scale of pay at the rate of 2.57 as provided to all other Government servants vide G.O.Ms.No.303. In the event if the petitioners had already

¶177

21/25

¶178

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

¶179

W.P(MD)Nos.35331 of 2025, 15,34,80,114,1407, 1147 of 2026

¶180

availed the benefit under the wage settlement of the year 2018, the same shall be recovered from the petitioners. Since the petitioners have approached this Court belatedly, they are not entitled for the interest. The revised scale of pay shall be calculated from the date of their promotion till the date of their retirement and disbursed the same to the petitioners, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”

¶181

13.Since the petitioners were promoted before

¶182

01.09.2017 and have not received benefits under the 2018 wage settlement, they are entitled to revised scale of pay by adopting a multiplier of 2.57 as per G.O(Ms.) No.330, Transport (C-1) Department dated 31.10.2018.

¶183

14.In view of the above, these writ petitions are allowed

¶184

and the respondents are directed to revise their scale of pay from the date of promotion till the date of retirement and disburse their salary adopting the 2.57 multiplier, within a period of six months from the

¶185

date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event if the petitioners

¶186

22/25

¶187

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

¶188

W.P(MD)Nos.35331 of 2025, 15,34,80,114,1407, 1147 of 2026

¶189

had already availed the benefit under the wage settlement of the year

¶190

2018, the same shall be recovered from the petitioners. No costs.