A.Calevanane v. The Managing DirectorPondicherry Tourism and Transport DevelopmentCorporation Limited(A Government of Pondicherryundertaking)Pondicherry – 605 001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 5.2.2008CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARANANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHIW.A.No.2662 of 2004A.Calevanane.. Appellant (Petitioner)VsThe Managing DirectorPondicherry Tourism and Transport DevelopmentCorporation Limited(A Government of Pondicherryundertaking)Pondicherry – 605 001... Respondent (Respondent)PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters patentAgainst the order of the learned Single Judge dated 4.3.2004made in W.P.No.5103 of 2004. Petition presented to this Courtunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writof certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating tothe order bearing No. C. D. No. 754, dated 26.10.2002 issued bythe respondent corporation and quash the same and consequentlydirect the respondent to re designate the petitioner's positionas “cook” in the scale of pay of Rs.3050-4590 with retrospectiveeffect from 1.1.2000.For Appellant:Mr.N.Venkatesanfor M/s.G.R.SwaminathanFor Respondent :Mr.John Kennedyfor M/s.T.ArulrajJUDGMENT(Delivered by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.)The unsuccessful writ petitioner in W.P.No.5103 of 2004 isthe appellant in the present appeal, which arises under thefollowing facts and circumstances of the case. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. For the purpose of convenience the parties are arrayed asper their rank in the writ petition. 3.1. The petitioner was engaged as a Cook on contract basisby the order of the respondent dated 22.5.1993. In the saidproceedings, it was made clear that he was engaged as a Cook oncontract basis initially for a period of six months from the dateof joining service; that the said period may either be extendedor reduced by the Management at its sole discretion; that hewould be paid a consolidated amount of Rs.850/- per month; thathis appointment would neither confer any regular employment inthe Corporation nor the petitioner would have any right for thesame; and that the contract is subject to termination by givingone month notice on either side or one month's contractual fee inlieu thereof.3.2. By proceedings dated 21.4.1995, the respondent enhancedand fixed the wage of the petitioner as Rs.1500/- per month witheffect from 1.4.1995. By proceedings dated 20.12.1997, the wageof the petitioner was enhanced to Rs.1950/- per month with effectfrom 1.9.1997, and thereafter by proceedings dated 25.5.1999, thepay of the petitioner was enhanced to Rs.2250/- per month witheffect from 1.5.1999.3.3. The respondent by proceedings dated 13.1.2000 decidedto absorb the petitioner as an Assistant Cook on ad hoc basis inthe scale of Rs.2550-55-2660-60-3200/-. The petitioner afteravailing the regular employment made a representation on20.12.2001 to the respondent stating that he should have beenabsorbed in the post of Cook, but not as an Assistant Cook. Asthe said representation of the petitioner was not considered bythe respondent, he preferred W.P.No.30842 of 2002 and this Court,by order dated 29.7.2002, directed the respondent to consider therepresentation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders onmerits within six weeks.3.4. The respondent, in compliance of the order dated29.7.2002 made in W.P.No.30842 of 2002, considered therepresentation of the petitioner dated 20.12.2001 and rejectedthe request of the petitioner by proceedings dated 26.10.2002.Hence, the petitioner preferred W.P.No.5103 of 2004 for issue ofa writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the recordsrelating to the order bearing C.D.No.754, dated 26.10.2002 issuedby the respondent, to quash the same and to consequently directthe respondent to re-designate the petitioner's position as"Cook" in the scale of pay of Rs.3050-4590 with retrospectiveeffect from 1.1.2000. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.5. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 4.3.2004,dismissed W.P.No.5103 of 2004 observing that the jurisdiction ofthis Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India toreview the order passed by the statutory authorities is verylimited as to the procedural irregularity or as to thejurisdictional issues and that it may not be proper for thisCourt, exercising Article 226 of the Constitution of India, togenerally interfere with the ultimate reasoning given on facts,dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal.4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, therespondent, having absorbed similarly placed persons for the postof Cook carrying the scale of pay of Rs.3050-4590/-, viz., ahigher scale of pay than that being drawn by the petitioner, thesame yardstick should have been adopted to the petitioner alsoand failure to do violates Article 14 of the Constitution ofIndia.5.1. The respondent filed a detailed counter affidavitsubstantiating the stand taken in the impugned order dated26.10.2002. According to the respondent, the petitioner does notsuffer any reversion or loss of remuneration, as he was workingas a Cook on contract basis with a consolidated pay of Rs.2250/-per month and was absorbed as Assistant Cook on ad hoc basis inthe scale of Rs.2550-55-2660-60-3200/-, which is higher than theconsolidated pay that was drawn by the petitioner as a Cook oncontract basis.5.2. It was also explained by the respondent that comparisonbetween the petitioner and other employees is not tenable asother employees, who were absorbed by the respondent are seniorsto the petitioner and they were absorbed as per their seniorityand merit; and that the position of the petitioner in theseniority list is below the other employees who were promoted asCook, viz., ninth in the seniority list and therefore, there isno discrimination or violation to Article 14 of the Constitutionof India.6. We have given careful consideration to the submissions ofboth sides.7. Concededly, the petitioner was employed on contract basiswith a consolidated pay of Rs.850/- per month. His wage wasenhanced to Rs.1500/- per month with effect from 1.4.1995 byproceedings dated 21.4.1995; to Rs.1950/- per month with 1.9.1997by proceedings dated 20.12.1997; and thereafter to Rs.2250/- permonth with effect from 1.5.1999, by proceedings dated 25.5.1999.Be that be, the respondent by proceedings dated 13.1.2000, afteraccommodating the seniors to the petitioner, absorbed the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner as an Assistant Cook on ad hoc basis in the scale ofRs.2550-55-2660-60-3200/-, which is higher than the consolidatedpay of Rs.2250/-, which he earned as a Cook on contract basis.8. In view of the above factual scenario, we are unable toappreciate the grievance of the petitioner that he was absorbedin a lower rank, viz., Assistant Cook, as the fact remains thathe was absorbed as an Assistant Cook on ad hoc basis in the scaleof pay of Rs.2550-55-2660-60-3200/-, whereas he was workingon contract basis with consolidated pay of Rs.2250/- per month,and moreover the other employees who were absorbed as Cooks areall seniors to the petitioner.Finding no merits, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. SasiSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarToThe Managing DirectorPondicherry Tourism and Transport DevelopmentCorporation Limited(A Government of Pondicherryundertaking)Pondicherry – 605 001.+ 1 cc to Mr. T. Arulraj, Advocate SR No. 6200+ 1 cc to Mr. G. R. Swaminathan, Advocate SR No. 5795W.A.No.2662 of 2004VC(CO)SR/14.2.2008