THE HONOURABLE MR v. M.Sivasankar2.M.Mukan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 21.04.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANIANDTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESANW.A.No.1398/20081.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary to Government, Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles & Khadi Department, Chennai-9.2.The Director of Sericulture, No.249, II Agraharam, Salem 636 001. Now functioning at the Commissioner of Sericulture, Foulkes Compound, Anaimedu, Salem 636 001.3.The Assistant Director of Sericulture, Parvathanahalli Post, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District ..Appellants/RespondentsVs.1.M.Sivasankar2.M.Mukan ..Respondents/PetitionersWrit Appeal filed against the order passed by this Court dated01.07.2008 passed in W.P.No.28492/2006 this Writ Petition presentedto this Court to direct the respondents to grant selection grade inthe post of Junior Inspector to the petitioners with effect from25.09.1989 and 24.09.1989 respectively, taking their total servicefrom initial dates of appointment as Sericulture Demonstrators(earlier operatives) and pay the arrears.For Appellants : Mr.R.Thirugnanam, Spl.G.P.For Respondents : Mr.C.K.Chandrasekaran https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ J U D G M E N T(made by P.Jyothimani, J.)Heard the Special learned Government Pleader appearing for theappellants and Mr.Chandrasekaran for the respondents.2.This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learnedSingle Judge dated 01.07.2008 passed in W.P.No.28492/2006, which wastransferred and renumbered from Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal,wherein it was filed as O.A.No.2729/1997. The learned Single Judgehas allowed the Writ Petition on the basis that the issue has beencovered in respect of similarly situated persons, by the order of theTamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.Nos.4858/1992 etc. dated05.11.1993 and applying the same, the relief has been directed to begiven to the respondents. The respondents in the original applicationfiled before the Tribunal have asked for a direction against thepresent appellants to grant selection grade in the post of JuniorInspectors with effect from 25.09.1989 and 24.09.1989 respectivelytaking their total service from their initial dates of appointment asSericulture Demonstrators which was earlier called as SericultureOperatives. 3.The main ground on which the writ appeal has been filedchallenging the order of the learned Judge is that the applicants inthe original application before the Tribunal to whom relief has beengiven in order dated 05.11.1993 are different from the presentrespondents. While it is the case of the learned Special GovernmentPleader that those applicants before the Tribunal were appointed inthe year 1961, the present respondents were appointed in the year1979 and therefore, for the grant of Selection Grade, the date ofjoining original service has to be taken into consideration andtherefore, according to the learned Special Government Pleader, thelearned Judge ought not to have extended the benefit of the ordergiven by the Tribunal dated 05.11.1993. 4.On the other hand, Mr.Chandrasekaran, learned Counsel for therespondents would submit that what was decided by the Tribunalearlier in batch of cases was not relating to the date of entry intoservice but the merger of the posts viz., Sericulture Operatives thatof the Sericulture Demonstrators and that of SericultureDemonstrators to that of the Junior Inspectors. It was taking note ofthe said merger into consideration, the Tribunal has passed finalorders. The Tribunal has held that merger is in effect re-designationand not promotion. In that view of the matter, direction was given tothe appellants herein to take the original date of joining duty asSericulture Operative for the purpose of conferring Selection Gradein the post of Sericulture Demonstrators which was subsequentlymerged as Junior Inspectors of Sericulture. The order of the Tribunal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in the batch of cases dated 05.11.1993 makes it very clear, which isas follows :-"The post of Sericulture Demonstrators wasin the scale Rs.265-425 or 280-450 in theordinary grade, in the selection grade Rs.310-500. The posts were merged with the highercategory of Junior Inspector of Sericulture onthe scale Rs.325-550 in the ordinary grade and400-700 in the Selection Grade with effect from01.10.1984. The revised scales for the post ofJunior Inspector of Sericulture are 610-1075,Ordinary grade and 705-1230 Selection Gradeaccording to G.O.Ms.No.694, Finance (Pay Cell)Department dated 11.08.1986.On the basis that consequent on merger ofthe lower post of Sericulture Demonstrators withthe higher category of Junior Inspector ofSericulture which was earlier the promotion postfor the Sericulture Demonstrators, the 5Sericulture Demonstrators should be deemed to beappointed to a higher post, pay is sought to berefixed in the ordinary grade of the higher posteven though they were eligible for selectiongrade with reference to the period of service asSericulture Demonstrators.The presumption that on merger of twocategories, if one category was lower and themerger was with higher category constitutingpromotion avenue earlier is in fact promotion andon that basic pay should be fixed as if onpromotion is not correct. The merger has thateffect of upgrading the lower post to the highercategory and the scales of pay becomes same.Therefore, but for the merger and SericultureDemonstrator would be eligible for selectiongrade with reference to his service as such andthe pay scale applicable would be the commonscale now applicable to the Junior Inspector ofSericulture in which category the SericultureDemonstrators has been merged. The mergertherefore, is in effect re-designation and not apromotion. The benefit of service as SericultureDemonstrator can not be denied for fixation ofpay in selection and special grades, if only forthe reason that but for the re-designationconsequent on the merger, the SericultureDemonstrators would be eligible to count their https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ entire service for purpose of selection andspecial grades in new scale for the post which isthe same as that of Junior Inspector ofSericulture".5.On a reading of the said order, it is not possible to acceptthe contention of the learned Government Pleader that the avermentsin the above said batch of cases are distinct from that of therespondents' case. The only difference is that the applicants thereinhave joined service in the year 1961 while the present respondentshave joined in the year 1979. But the post remains the same. Therespondents have joined as temporary Sericulture Operatives which wassubsequently merged and called as Sericulture Demonstrators from theyear 1981 by G.O.Ms.No.603 dated 08.03.1989. Subsequently,Sericulture Demonstrators post itself has been merged with the JuniorInspector of Sericulture now called as Junior Inspector ofSericulture.6.It is well settled that once similarly placed persons as thatof the respondents have been given a relief, the respondents are alsoentitled to get such benefits.7.In that view of the matter, we see no reason to interfere withthe order of the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal fails and thesame is dismissed. No costs. M.P.No.1/2008 is also dismissed.sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrartarTo1.The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles & Khadi Department, Chennai-9.2.The Director of Sericulture, No.249, II Agraharam, Salem 636 001. Now functioning at the Commissioner of Sericulture, Foulkes Compound, Anaimedu, Salem 636 001. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The Assistant Director of Sericulture, Parvathanahalli Post, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District.+ 1 c.c. to The Government Pleader. S.R.No.16293.W.A.No.1398/2008SAI (CO)GSK 28.04.2009.