S.T.Loganathan v. The Secretary to Government,Home (Prison II) Department

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 24.08.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMANW.P.No. 9456 of 2007S.T.Loganathan... PetitionerVsThe Secretary to Government,Home (Prison II) Department,Fort St. George,Chennai-9. ... RespondentPRAYER: This Writ petition came to be numbered under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No.387 of 2002from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, to call forthe records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the respondentin Letter No.21926/Prison.II/2001-7, dated 31.08.2001 and set asidethe same and consequently, direct the respondent to fix the pay scaleof the petitioner post viz., Welfare Officer on par with the OfficeManagers and Superintendents in the Ministerial Service with allmonetary and attendant benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.Veera KathiravanFor Respondent : Mrs.C.K.Vishnu Priya, Additional Government PleaderORDERThe petitioner was initially appointed as Typist in the PrisonDepartment with effect from 21.06.1976. Subsequently, he was promotedto the post of Assistant with effect from 14.09.1983. Thereafter, hewas promoted by way of transfer to the post of Welfare Officer witheffect from 17.06.1994, when he was a Selection Grade Assistant. 2.When he was posted as Welfare Officer in the year 1994, thescale of pay for Office Superintendents, Office Managers and WelfareOfficers in the Prison Department was Rs.1600-2660 as prescribed inthe recommendations of the V Pay Commission. 3.When the pay was revised pursuant to G.O.162, Finance (PC) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Department, dated 13.04.1998, implementing the recommendations of VIPay Commission, the pay was revised to all the aforesaid threecategories from Rs.1600 -2660 to Rs.5300-150-8300 with effect from01.01.1996. 4.However, the Superintendents numbering thousands in all overTamil Nadu, demanded the Tamil Nadu Government that they were notsatisfied with the prescription of scale of pay at Rs.5300-8000 forthe post of Superintendent. The Tamil Nadu Government constituted anone man Commission and based on the recommendations of the one mancommission, in G.O.Ms.No.428, Finance (PC) Department, dated28.08.1998, revised the pay of Office Superintendent from 5300-150-8300 to 5500-175-9000. In view of this revision, the OfficeSuperintendent in the Prison Department got benefited. Since the postof Office Superintendent and Office Manager are interchangeable, theOffice Manager also got benefited by the G.O.Ms.No.428, Finance (PC)Department, dated 28.08.1998. Hence, there was a disparity betweenthe scale of pay of the Welfare Officers on the one hand, the scaleof pay of Office Superintendents and Office Managers on the otherhand. 5.The petitioner made a representation to the Inspector Generalof Prisons, who is the Head of the Department, requesting to setright the anomaly and to bring the scale of pay of Welfare Officerson par with the Office Superintendents and Office Managers in PrisonDepartment. The Inspector General of Prisons wrote a detailed letterin Letter No.52705/ABL/1998, dated 08.10.1998 to the respondentrecommending that the scale of Welfare Officers has to be revised onpar with Office Superintendents at Rs.5500-9000. The InspectorGeneral of Prisons also stated that there are only ten posts ofWelfare Officers in the Prison Department, thereby, it would notcause much cost for the exchequers. However, as usual, there isinaction on the part of the Government. 6.This forced the petitioner to file the Original Application inO.A.No.865 of 2001 praying for a direction to the respondent toconsider and pass orders on his representation claiming the pay ofSuperintendent. The Tribunal passed an order dated 15.02.2001,directing the petitioner to make a representation along with the copyof the order to the respondent, within thirty days and on receipt ofthe said representation, the respondent was directed to consider thesame and pass orders on merit, within a period of five months. 7.Thereafter, the respondent passed the impugned order dated31.08.2001, rejecting the claim of the petitioner, claiming the scaleof Rs.5500-9000 as paid to Superintendents to the Welfare Officers.The petitioner filed O.A.No.387 of 2002 (W.P.No.9456 of 2007) to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ quash the aforesaid order of the respondent, dated 31.08.2001 and forconsequential direction to fix the pay scale of the Welfare Officerson par with the Office Managers and Superintendents in theMinisterial Service of the Prison Department, with all monetary andattendant benefits. 8.On abolition of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, theOriginal Application was transferred to this Court and numbered asW.P.No.9456 of 2007.9.Heard Mr.Veera Kathiravan, the learned counsel for thepetitioner and Mrs.C.K.Vishnu Priya, the learned AdditionalGovernment Pleader for the respondent.10.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that theimpugned order of the respondent is a cryptic one, without containingany reason. In fact, the order is as follows_"It is considered that there are no valid reasons toentertain your petition for revising the scales of pay ofthe post of Welfare Officer in Prison Department on parwith the pay scale applicable to the post of OfficeManager/Superintendent. Your request contained in yourletter dated 19.06.1999 is therefore rejected."11.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that theimpugned order was passed by non-application of mind to the issuesraised by the petitioner and therefore, it has to be set aside. 12.The learned counsel further contends that the InspectorGeneral of Prisons wrote a detailed letter in his ProceedingsNo.52705/AB1/98, dated 08.10.1998, recommending that the WelfareOfficers shall be paid the scale of Office Superintendent. Paragraph4 of the said recommendations is extracted here under. "4.Since, Welfare Officer and social case work Expertsare called as Correctional Officers in Prison Department,their duties are more responsible by comparing with others.Further, the sanctioned strength of these posts in thisdepartment are 10 and 3 respectively. Their duties areenumerated in the Rule 116 and 117 of the Tamil NaduPrison, Manual Value-II considering their nature of duties.I suggest that the scale of pay of the said posts may alsobe revised atleast equal to the scale of pay of the post ofOffice Superintendent is Rs.5500-9000. I therefore requestGovernment consider the proposal and orders may be obtainedduly revising the scale of pay of the post of WelfareOfficer and Social Case Work Experts as Rs.5500-9000 andcommunicated to this office early." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

13.But the respondent does not even refer to the recommendationof the Head of the Department.14.The learned counsel further submits that even in the replyfiled by the respondent it is stated that the source of appointmentfor the post of Welfare Officer as per Rule-2 under Branch V of theSpecial Rules for the Tamil Nadu Jail Subordinate Service, is byrecruitment by transfer from among the Office Superintendents/OfficeManagers in the Prison Department. When no persons are availableunder this category, recruitment by transfer from Selection GradeAssistant in the Prison Department to Welfare Officer, has to beresorted to. The learned counsel further submits that if higher scaleprescribed for the post of Office Superintendent/ Office Manager isnot extended to Welfare Officer, no Office Superintendent/ OfficeManager would express his willingness to serve as a Welfare Officer,and the very purpose of the recruitment by transfer from thiscategory would get defeated. The learned counsel for the petitionersubmits that the Welfare Officers in the Prison Department are calledCorrectional Officers and they are only very limited in number andtherefore, by granting the scale of Office Superintendent, no muchstakes is involved for the respondent. 15.On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate seeks tosustain the impugned order relying on the reply affidavit filed bythe respondent and submits that the Government is empowered to decideon the question of scale of pay and the petitioner is not entitled todemand the scale of pay of Office Superintendent, as a matter ofright. 16.I have considered the submissions of either side. Theimpugned order of the respondent is a cryptic one. No reason is givenfor rejecting the claim of the petitioner. When the petitioner hascome with the specific case that the scale of pay of OfficeSuperintendents and Welfare Officers was the same in the V payCommission recommendations as well as the VI Pay Commissionrecommendations, the same was altered only by way of therecommendation of the One Man Commission, the respondent failed toconsider the same. The respondent also failed to consider therecommendations of the Inspector General of Prisons referred toabove. He strongly recommended for revision of scale of WelfareOfficers on par with Office Superintendents. In fact, the InspectorGeneral of Prisons states that the duties of the Welfare Officers aremore responsible comparing with others. Further, the InspectorGeneral of Prisons states that the Welfare Officers are called asCorrectional Officers in the Prison Department and there are only tenpersons working as Welfare Officers in the Prison Department. Noneof these factors are considered by the respondent while passing theimpugned order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

17.Further more, importantly, when the service rules provide forappointment of the Welfare Officers by recruitment, by transfer fromOffice Superintendent/Office Managers, then there should be parity ofthe scale between these posts. In fact, the parity was maintainedall along until it was set at naught by G.O.Ms.No.428, Finance (PC)Department, dated 28.08.1998, prescribing Rs.5500-9000 scale forOffice Superintendent. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner forparity with Office Superintendent based on the service rules cannotsimply be brushed aside by the respondent. Unfortunately, therespondent did not consider these aspects at all.18.Further, when Rs.5500-9000 scale was prescribed for OfficeSuperintendent, it was for the category of Office Superintendent inthe entire Tamil Nadu and obviously, there are thousands of OfficeSuperintendents in the Government Service. While the respondentyielded to the pressure of the Office Superintendent to raise the payscale from Rs.5300-8500 to Rs.5500-9000, the respondent should haveconsidered the claim of the Welfare Officers, who are just ten innumber. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on therecommendations of Inspector General of Prisons in this regard. TheInspector General of Prisons states that since there are only tenWelfare Officers, it will not involve high stake for the Government.19.Normally in these matters, where the scale of pay ofdifferent categories are involved, this Court could not interfere inthose matters, leaving to experts of the field to decide the issue.However, here is a case, where the claim of the petitioner is basedon the service rules supported by the Head of the Department, whilethe impugned order is passed without application of mind to therelevant facts of the issue, I am left with no other option except toquash the impugned order. Hence, the impugned order is quashed andthe respondent is directed to consider the claim of the petitionerfor parity in scale with Office Superintendent/Office Managers and topass an order, within a period of six months from the date of receiptof a copy of this order. No costs. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ mpsToThe Secretary to Government,Home (Prison II) Department,Fort St. George,Chennai-9. +1cc to Govt.Pleader Sr 41560VS(CO)km/15.9.W.P.No. 9456 of 2007