✦ High Court of India · 08 Jan 2025

Madrasdated High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 08 Jan 2025

Court

High Court of India

Decided

08 Jan 2025

Bench

R SURESH KUMAR

Length

2,227 words

W.A.Nos.27 and 42 of 2025-Vs-S.R.SivakumarS/o.S.S.Ramakrishnan... Respondentin W.A.No.27 of 2025S.NepolianS/o.A.Shanmugarajan... Respondentin W.A.No.42 of 2025COMMON PRAYER : Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order in W.P.No.5589 and 5588 of 2017 dated 23.08.2023 and allow the above writ appeal.For Appellants:Mrs.M.Snehain both W.AsSpecial Counsel (Health and Family Welfare Department)For Respondents:Mr.R.Venkatavaradhan in both W.AsC O M M O N J U D G M E N T(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)Since these writ appeals had been directed against the orders passed by the writ Court made in W.P.Nos.5589 and 5588 of 2017 dated 23.08.2023 of course by separate orders by the writ Court and the issue raised in both these writ petitions is one and the same, both these writ appeals were heard together at the admission stage and disposed of by this common order.2/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.27 and 42 of 20252. That the respondents herein, in both the writ petitions who are the respective writ petitioners, are differently abled persons and they had been appointed in the year 2003 by virtue of G.O(Ms)No.83 dated 04.07.2003 as Junior Assistants at the appellant Department. They joined in services on 11.07.2003 and since then, they had been working with consolidated pay of Rs.4,000/- and Rs.3,500/- respectively.3. Like these writ petitioners, several other people who are also differently abled persons had been appointed at various Departments and had been working in consolidated pay, therefore, on behalf of these differently abled persons, the Association has given representation to the Chief Minister of the State to bring them under regular time scale of pay to regularize their services with all service benefits. This seems to have taken place on 19.08.2008, pursuant to which, the State Government had taken a policy decision and issued a Government Order in G.O.(Ms)No.151, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department dated 16.10.2008. The import of the Government Order which is in Tamil is extracted hereunder for better understanding of the issue"Miz:jkpH;ehL cly; CdKw;nwhh; r';f';fspd; 3/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.27 and 42 of 2025Tl;likg;gpd; eph;thfpfs; Kjyikr;rh; mth;fis jiyikr; brayfj;jpy; 19-08-2008 md;W re;jpj;J. j';fsJ nfhhpf;iffis mspj;jhh;fs;/ mg;nghJ CdKw;nwhh; r';f';fspd; Tl;likg;gpd; nfhhpf;iffis fdpt[ld; ghprPypj;J bgUk;ghyhd nfhhpf;iffis Vw;W chpa eltof;iffs; nkw;bfhs;sg;gl;L murhizfs; btspaplg;gLk; vd;W khz;g[kpF Kjyikr;rh; mth;fs; mwptpj;jhh;fs;/ jkpHf murpd; gy;ntW Jiwfspy; ,uz;lhz;Lf;F nky; bjhFg;g{jpaj;jpd;fPH; gzpahw;wp tUk; CdKw;nwhUf;F fhyKiw Cjpak; tH';fg;gLk; vd;w mwptpg;g[k; mjpy; xd;whFk;/ jkpHf murpd; gy;ntW Jiwfspy; ,uz;lhz;LfSf;F nky; bjhFg;g{jpaj;jpd; fpH; gzpahw;wp tUk; CdKw;nwhUf;F fhyKiw Cjpak; tH';fg;gLk; vd;w khz;g[kpF Kjyikr;rhpd; mwptpg;gpd; kPJ chpa Mizfs; btspapLkhW Kjd;ikr; brayhsh; - CdKw;nwhUf;fhd khepy Mizah; muir nfhhpa[s;shh;/2/ Kjd;ikr; brayhsh; - CdKw;nwhUf;fhd khepy Mizahpd; fUj;JUit ftdkhfg; ghprPypj;j gpd;dh; jkpHf murpd; gy;ntW Jiwfspy; ,uz;lhz;LfSf;F nky; bjhFg;g{jpaj;jpd;fpH; gzpahw;wp tUk; CdKw;nwhUf;F fhyKiw Cjpak; tH';f muR MizapLfpwJ/4/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.27 and 42 of 20253/ midj;Jj;Jiwj; jiyth;fSk; ,t;thizia jtwhJ gpd;gw;WkhWk; ,t;thizapd;go bjhFg;g{jpaj;jpypUe;J fhyKiw Cjpaj;jpw;F bfhz;Ltug;gLk; CdKw;nwhh; rhh;ghf VnjDk; tpjpfs; jsh;t[ bra;ag;gl ntz;Lkhapd; me;je;j Jiwj; jiyth;fs; me;je;j jiyikr; brayf eph;thf Jiwfspd; xg;g[jy; bgw;W. gpd;dh; mth;fspd; gzpia thd;Kiwg;gLj;jpf; (Regularize) bfhs;SkhWk; nfl;Lf; bfhs;sg;gLfpwhh;fs;/"4. The translated version of the Government Order reads thus:"ORDER:Association Leaders for Differently Abled of Tamil Nadu has met Chief Minister and represented their Grievances at Secretariat on 19.08.2008. Consequently, the Chief Minister has assured that major Grievances will be taken into consideration and necessary Government Orders will be issued. Among other demands, absorbing Differently Abled Persons who work in Consolidated Pay for more than Two Years into Regular Time Scale of Pay is also one amongst the Announcements made by the Chief Minister. The Principal Secretary / Commissioner of Differently Abled has requested the Government to issue suitable Government Orders on the announcement of Chief 5/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.27 and 42 of 2025Minister that Differently Abled Persons who work in Consolidated Pay for more Than Two Years in various Departments under Government of Tamil Nadu will be absorbed into Regular Time Scale of Pay.2. After careful examination of proposal given by the Principal Secretary / Commissioner of Differently Abled, the Government have issued orders to absorb the Differently Abled Persons who work in Consolidated Pay for more than Two Years in various Departments in Government of Tamil Nadu under Regular Time Scale of Pay.3. All Heads of Departments are requested to adhere this Government Order scrupulously in the first instance, and get relaxation orders in respect of the Differently Abled Persons while absorbing them into Regular Time Scale of Pay in the required cases in consultation with concerned Administrative Department of the Secretariat and thereafter to regularize the Services of the absorbed candidates."5. As per G.O.(Ms)No.151, those differently abled persons working in various Departments on consolidated pay for more than two years would be brought under time scale of pay and their services would be regularised. 6/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.27 and 42 of 20256. That is the import of the Government Order, based on which, the services of these respondents / writ petitioners had been brought under regular time scale of pay from the date of the Government Order i.e., 16.10.2008 and they become eligible to get such time scale of pay from 21.10.2010, the date on which the date has been fixed by the appellant Department through the proceedings issued in this regard.7. Challenging such proceedings issued by the appellants, whereby the date of bringing them under regular time scale of pay as well as the pay benefits accordingly to be allowed was given to these respondents / writ petitioners from a subsequent date. The writ petitioners challenging those orders had approached this Court by filing the respective writ petitions.8. The writ Court heard the said matter and passed separate orders on the same day i.e., on 23.08.2023 as the issue is one and the same and the facts are similar. The order of the writ Court made in W.P.No.5589 of 2017 dated 23.08.2023 is traversed herein.9. The writ Court having gone through the import of G.O.(Ms)No.151 by extracting the relevant portion, i.e., paragraph 8 of the impugned orders has given the following findings:7/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.27 and 42 of 2025"9.A clear reading of the said G.O shows that on completion of two years of continuous service those who have been in consolidated pay should be brought into regular service. There cannot be any further interpretation. There is no ambiguity in the order. The Government Order is clear and the wordings are straight forward. 10.However, it is seen from the impugned order, which is challenged in the present writ petition that the petitioner had been brought into regular service only on 21.07.2010. There is no rationale behind that particular aspect. Even if it has to be considered that they cannot be brought into regular service on and from issuance of G.O.(Ms).No.151, it is seen that the petitioner had been brought into regular service on and from 16.10.2008. That is prejudicial to the petitioner herein since the petitioner had completed two years of service in the year 2005. 11.The wordings in the Government Order is that those who are physically challenged and those who had completed two years of service on consolidated pay should be regularized if there are no other adverse remarks. There is no stand taken by the respondents that there are any adverse remarks against the the petitioner herein. "10. By giving such an interpretation and by following so, the writ Court has allowed the writ petitions, as against which, the present appeals have been 8/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.27 and 42 of 2025directed. 11. Assailing the said impugned orders passed by the writ Court, Mrs.M.Sneha, learned Special Counsel for Health and Family Welfare Department appearing for the appellants would contend that, though it is a policy decision taken by the Government to approve those differently abled persons who have been working in consolidated pay for more than two years under the regular time scale of pay, that request since had been made only in the year 2008 before the Head of the Government and the policy decision only thereafter had been taken and it has been issued by the Government in G.O.(Ms)No.151 dated 16.10.2008, such date shall be taken into account for the purpose of calculating two years period, therefore, those who have completed two years with effect from the date on 16.10.2008 alone would be entitled to get the benefit on regular time scale of pay and all other corresponding service benefits, therefore they cannot be given retrospective effect as if that the incumbents are entitled to get such benefits retrospectively from the date of their initial appointment of course on consolidated pay, therefore, such an interpretation given by the learned Judge is erroneous, hence, the learned counsel seeks indulgence of this Court.12. We have heard Mr.R.Venkatavaradhan, learned counsel appearing for 9/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.27 and 42 of 2025the respondents also.13. We have gone through the import of G.O.(Ms)No.151 and the wordings both in Tamil and English which have been extracted herein above. The exact policy decision that has been taken by the Government reads that, the Government have issued orders to absorb the differently abled persons who are working under the consolidated pay for more than two years in various Departments in Government of Tamil Nadu under regular time scale of pay.14. Therefore, those who have been working in consolidated pay for more than two years would become eligible to get such benefits on regular time scale of pay, is only the import of the Government Order.15. Nowhere in G.O.(Ms)No.151, it is stated that, those who have been working under consolidated pay for more than two years would be eligible to get the regular time scale of pay with effect from the date of issuance of the Government Order or any subsequent date to be fixed by the Government through the Government Order. In the absence of any such wordings in the Government Order, the Government while taking the policy decision has made clear that, all those differently abled persons who have been working in consolidated pay at various Departments of the Government of Tamil Nadu for 10/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.27 and 42 of 2025more than two years would be eligible to be brought under regular time scale of pay, therefore, if such being the decision of the Government Order which reflects the policy decision taken by the Government, the present appellant Department cannot seek for any different interpretation from this Court.16. This stand has been clearly made by the learned Judge in paragraph No.9 of the order impugned, where the learned Judge has held that, there cannot be any further interpretation as there is no ambiguity in the Government Order and the Government Order is clear and the wordings are straight forward.17. We do not find any infirmity in the view expressed by the learned Judge in the impugned order. Since the import of the Government Order only mandates that, the Government or Head of the Department who gives such benefits bringing them under regular time scale of pay on completion of two years shall extend the benefit from the date of initial appointment or completion of two years and such a direction had also been given in paragraph No.3 of the said G.O.(Ms)No.151 by giving necessary relaxation for implementing the same, the intention of the Government since had been clearly made in G.O.(Ms)No.151, such interpretation as has been given by the learned Judge is the only possible view to be given to the wordings of the Government Order. 11/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.27 and 42 of 2025Therefore, the attempt made now through these intra Court appeals by the appellant Department does not hold any water and such interpretation if it is given, that will be detrimental to the beneficiaries of the Government Order, i.e., differently abled persons who have been working for more than two years and it would defeat the very purpose of the Government Order which emanated from the policy decision taken by the Government at higher level. It cannot also be stated that the benefit of the Government Order would apply only after completion of two years period from the date of issuance of the Government Order, as, such interpretation is not at all possible to be carried out from the wordings mentioned in the Government Order. 18. Resultantly, these Writ Appeals fail, hence they are liable to be dismissed, accordingly, dismissed. Three months time is granted to implement the order passed by the writ Court, which is impugned herein. Till such time, no coercive steps shall be taken against the appellants. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (R.S.K., J.) (C.S.N., J.) 08.01.2025NCC : Yes / NoIndex : Yes / No12/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.27 and 42 of 2025Speaking Order : Yes / Novji13/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.27 and 42 of 2025R.SURESH KUMAR, J.and C.SARAVANAN, J.vjiW.A.Nos.27 and 42 of 2025andC.M.P.Nos.173 and 288 of 202508.01.202514/14

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments