S.Karuthappandi v. The Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 4.12.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARWrit Petition No.13135 of 2004S.Karuthappandi. ... Petitioner vs.1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, Industries Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.2.The Director of Sugar, Old No.474, (New No.690), Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035.3.The Special Officer, The Maduranthakam Co-operative Sugar Mills, Padalam, Kancheepuram District-603 308.4.The Administrator, Tiruttani Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Thiruvallangadu, Thiruvallur District 631 210. ... Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, directing thesecond respondent and calling for the records in R.C.No.25577/S &L.2/2003 dated 8.12.2003 and quash the same and to grant thepetitioner in the pay scale of the electrical supervisor (Supervisory'C' grade Rs.5000-150-8000). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner : Mr.S.T.VaratharajanFor Respondents : Mr.V.Manoharan, Government Advocate for R1 and R2 : Mr.Swaminathan for Mr.K.Rajasekaran for R3 and R4. O R D E RThis Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus, directing the second respondent and callingfor the records in R.C.No.25577/S & L.2/2003 dated 8.12.2003 andquash the same and to grant the petitioner in the pay scale of theElectrical Supervisor (Supervisory 'C' Grade Rs.5000-150-8000). 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- Petitioner isa Diploma holder in Electrical and Electronics Engineering with "C"Certificate, (i.e.) Electrical Supervisor. He joined the services ofthe third respondent as Instrument Supervisor on 21.2.1996. Basedon his ability and capability, by proceeding dated 22.4.1996, he wasasked to do Electrical Engineer work based on "C" Certificate in caseof emergency. Thereafter, on 25.3.1999 in proceedings RC.No.PF/98-99/E the third respondent passed the following order:-"PROCEEDINGS Sub: Establishment – Thiru S.Karuthapandi, Instrument Supervisor – Posting to hold fulladditional charge in the vacant place –orders issued – Regarding.Ref: Note Orders dated 25.03.99.Thiru S.Karuthapandi, Instrument Supervisoris directed to attend the work of ElectricalSupervisor in the vacant place in addition to hisnormal works, till further orders.This order takes effect from 06.01.99."It is not in dispute that till the closure of the third respondentmill the petitioner continued to perform the work of ElectricalSupervisor (i.e.) upto 16.12.2001. Thereafter, on the closure of thethird respondent mill, the petitioner was deputed to the fourthrespondent mill and he continued to work in the fourth respondentmill as Electrical Supervisor till March, 2003. Hence, thepetitioner sought for regularization in the post of Electrical https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Supervisor. He approached this Court in W.P.No.24025 of 2003 andthis Court directed the Authority to consider the representation ofthe petitioner and the fourth respondent after considering therepresentation, in his order dated 8.12.2003 rejected the plea of thepetitioner for appointment to the post of Electrical Supervisorstating that the appointment to the post of Electrical Supervisor canbe done only through direct recruitment as per Circular dated26.8.1999. Challenging the said order, present writ petition hasbeen filed.3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on instructionfrom the petitioner, who was present in Court, stated that atpresent he is not inclined to seek larger relief sought for tosetting aside the impugned order, but prayed for payment of salaryfor the work done as the Electrical Supervisor during the relevantperiod done. 4. Heard Mr.Swaminathan, learned counsel appearing for therespondents 3 and 4, who referred to the counter-affidavit and statedthat insofar as the work done as Electrical Supervisor is concerned,petitioner was given 10% of the pay as additional pay. Therefore,he is entitled to the salary as is payable to on regular ElectricalSupervisor less the 10% additional pay if the Court is so inclined.5. The short question that arises in the present case in viewof the relief now sought for by the petitioner is whether thepetitioner will be entitled to pay for the work done as an ElectricalSupervisor on par with the similarly placed persons working in thethird respondent mill. 6. It is not disputed that from 25.3.1999, the petitioner wasdirected to attend the work of an Electrical Supervisor in additionto the normal work. The period for which the petitioner has workedfrom 6.1.1999 to 16.11.2001 in the third respondent mill and from17.11.2001 till March, 2003 under the fourth respondent as ElectricalSupervisor is not disputed. 7. In view of the Apex Court's decisions in Union of India andothers - vs. - Ram Gopal Agarwal & others reported in 1998(1) LLJ1233 and Jaswant Singh – vs. - Punjab Poultry Field StaffAssociation and others reported in (2002)1 Supreme Court Cases 261,equal pay has to be paid for equal work. The Apex Court in Para 11of the decision in Jaswant Singh's case held as follows:-"11. The High Court's decision in GobindSingh case did not direct the promotion of GobindSingh. What was directed was the payment ofsalary and allowances of the post of Chick Sexersince Gobind Singh had been discharging the dutiesof that post. Therefore, while the appellant's https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ promotion to the post of Chick Sexer cannot beupheld, given the fact that the appellant haddischarged the duties of a Chick Sexer, he was atleast entitled to the pay and other allowancesattributable to that post during the period hecarried out such duties."Further in Selvaraj – vs. - Lt. Governor of Island, Port Blairreported in (1998)4 SCC 291, the Apex Court held that the pay of thehigher post is payable to an employee looking after the duties ofthat post, the employee is entitled to get higher post pay for thework done in that post even though the said post is not to be treatedas promotion. In Jaswant Singh's case (cited supra) the Apex Courtheld that if a person discharged the duties of a higher post, he isentitled to get the pay and allowances admissible to the promotionpost.8. In the present case, there is no dispute that the petitionerwas performed a work of Electrical Supervisor. Hence, the petitioneris entitled to pay as Electrical Supervisor. The writ petitioner is,therefore, entitled to benefit of higher pay as applicable asElectrical Supervisor for the period from 6.1.1999 to 16.11.2001 fromthe third respondent and from 17.11.2001 till March, 2003 from thefourth respondent subject to deduction of 10% excess basic paysaid to have already been paid. The respondents shall reconcile theaccount and give the details of the payment to the petitioner. TheWrit Petition is ordered as above. No order as to costs. ts Sd/- Asst.Registrar/True Copy/ Sub.Asst.RegistrarTo 1.The Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.2.The Director of Sugar, Old No.474, (New No.690), Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The Special Officer, The Maduranthakam Co-operative Sugar Mills, Padalam, Kancheepuram District-603 308.4.The Administrator, Tiruttani Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Thiruvallangadu, Thiruvallur District 631 210. + 1 cc to Mr. S.T. Varatharajan, Advocate CC SR.66449/09+ 2 cc to Mr.K. Rajasekaran, Advocate CC SR.66097/09 W.P.No.13135 of 2004RB(CO)EU 18.12.2009