High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED :13.07.2007 C O R A M :THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANIW.P.No. 25435 of 2001and WPM.P.No.18206 OF 2006AND WVMP.NO.241 OF 20061. Madurai District Central Co.operative Bank Employees Union (Regd.No.31/MDU) 187, North Veli Street Madurai 625 001.2. A. Pandi...Petitioners-vs-1.The State of Tamil Nadurep. By its SecretaryCo.operation, Food andConsumer Protection DepartmentFort St. George, Chennai 600 001.2.Registrar of Co.oprative SocietiesN.V. Natarajan BuildingNo.170, E.V.R. Periyar High RoadKilpauk, Madras 10.3.Madurai District CentralCo.operative Bankrep. By its Special Officer187 North Veli StreetMadurai 625 001.4.R. Alagarsamy5.R. Perumal6.B. Marimuthu7.N.S. Subramanian8.K. Radhakrishnan9.K. Perumal10.S. Thilagar11.G. Varadharajan12.P. Surlimuthu https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

13.G. Thangaraj14.A. Suruli.. R4 to R14 impleaded as per order dated 17.3.2005 in WMP NO. 3829/0415.M.D.C.C. Bank Staff UnionRegd.No.947.MDU(42-B) New No.99 South Main StreetMadurai 625 001...R15 impleaded as per order dated 18.10.2005 in WMP NO. 29696/0516.R. Chellandi17.O. Subba Reddiar18.S. Rathinam19.V. Gururajan20.G. Muthiah21.S. Subash Chandran22.M. Murugan.. RespondentsR16 to 22 impleaded as per order dated 3.3.06 in WPMP NO. 307/06Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for issuance of a Writ of Declaration as statedtherein. For petitioners :: Mr. Govardhanan for M/s. Row & ReddyFor respondents :: Mr. K. Balu Addl. Govt. Pleader for R.2 and R.2 Mr. S. Silambannan, Sr. Counsel for M/s. Silambannan Assts. For R.3 Ms. S. Sujatha for M/s. P. Chandrasekaran for R.4 to R.14 Mr. S. Arunachalam for R.15 Mr. M. Damodaran for R.16 to R.22. .. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ORDERThis writ petition is filed for declaration that the letterof the second respondent, viz., the Registrar of Co.operativeSocieties, Chennai, dated 16.11.2001, is illegal and contrary toG.O.No.203 Co.operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department,dated 21.05.2001, issued by the first respondent-Government andconsequently direct the third respondent to grant Selection Gradeto the Members of the petitioner Union from the date of completionof 12 years of service in the revised Assistant and Sub-Staffcadre in terms of the above said Government Order. 2. The petitioner Union is a Trade Union of the employees ofthird respondent, Madurai District Central Co.operative Bank.According to the petitioner, the third respondent Bank isregistered under the Tamil Nadu Co.operative Societies Act, 1983.As per the settlement entered into between the employees and thethird respondent under Section 18 (1) of the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 (in short, "the I.D. Act") dated 09.12.1978, there were12 categories of employees, viz.,(i)Assistant Secretary;(ii) Manager;(iii) Executive Officer/Development Officer;(iv)Section Superintendent/Agent/ChiefCashier;(v)Accountant/Senior Supervisor;(vi)Cashier/Supervisor/Typist;(vii)Senior Typist;(viii)Telephone Operator;(ix)Junior Supervisor No.I;(x)Junior Supervisor No.II;(xi)Messengers/Watchmen; and(xii)Drivers.The categories contained in Serial Nos.4 to 12 are workmen as perSection 2(s) of the I.D. Act. The petitioner states that by asubsequent settlement dated 23.05.1987, the said 12 categories ofemployees were reduced to 8 in number and that was the settlemententered under Section 12 (3) of the I.D. Act. It is the furthercase of the petitioner that the said categories were once againrevised by subsequent settlement dated 08.01.1991 and also17.02.1997 and ultimately, the 12 categories mentioned in the year1987 were finally reduced to 6 in number, viz.,(i)General Manager;(ii)Assistant General Manager;(iii)Manager;(iv)Assistant Manager; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (v)Assistant; and(vi)Sub Staff.3. According to the petitioner Union, since various categorieshave been merged and seniors and juniors have been brought asAssistant and Sub-Staff cadres respectively, they have requestedfor a creation of Selection Grade as a different category toidentify the seniors and juniors. Therefore, it was agreed in thesettlement under Section 12 (3) of the Act dated 17.02.1997 thatemployees who have put in 15 years of service or more in the samecadre upto the level of Assistant General Manager (AssistantSecretary) would be fitted in Selection Grade upon determinationof special pay scale by a separate committee. According to thepetitioner, the said settlement is in force and has not beensuperseded, and no notice under Section 9-A of the I.D. Act hasbeen given for the purpose of altering the service condition.After persuation, the Government has passed G.O.Ms.No.203 dated21.05.2001, under which the Government has directed SelectionGrade to a person who had put in 12 years of service in oneparticular category. According to the petitioner, the GovernmentOrder specifically states that the total years of service from thedate of joining has to be taken for the purpose of grantingSelection Grade.4. According to the petitioner, even before the saidGovernment Order, the second respondent by letter dated02.12.1993, has informed the Joint Registrar of all Regions tostreamline the cadre strength and the pay scale of employees ofPrimary Land Development Banks and directed that the SelectionGrade/Special Grade, the grade of Clerks /Supervisors may beintegrated and the grades were to be decided based on the lengthof their service and according to the petitioner Union based onthe said direction of the second respondent dated 02.12.1993,Selection Grade was given to the employees of Primary LandDevelopment Banks taking into consideration their initial date ofentry into service. According to the petitioner, in respect ofthe employees of the third respondent Bank, due to the confusioncreated by the third respondent, the second respondent has giventhe impugned clarification dated 16.11.2001 stating that theSelection Grade would be given only on and from 01.07.1974 as thedifferent categories were merged only on the said date. It is asagainst the said impugned clarification of the second respondentdated 16.11.2001, the petitioner Union has filed the present writpetition and for direction to follow G.O.Ms.No.203 dated21.05.2001, issued by the Government in respect of grant ofSelection Grade. According to the petitioner Union, the impugnedclarification letter by the second respondent is againstG.O.Ms.No.203 dated 21.05.2001. It is also the case of thepetitioner Union that the Government has also issuedG.O.Ms.No.144, Co.operation, Food and Consumer Protection https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Department, dated 06.07.2000, permitting the respective Co-operative Banks to grant Selection Grade to those who havecompleted 12 years of service and therefore, in all fairness thesecond respondent should have followed the same in respect ofemployees of the third respondent Bank also especially in thepresence of the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.203 dated 21.05.2001.5. The first and second respondents have filed a counteraffidavit. It is the case of the said respondents that underG.O.Ms.No.144 Co.operation, Food and Consumer ProtectionDepartment, dated 06.07.2000 in respect of the employees of theDistrict Central Co-operative Banks, those employees who have beencompleted 12 years in the same category were directed to be givenSelection Grade of pay with effect from 01.07.1994 and it was onthat basis the Government has issued the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.203Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated21.05.2001. It is the case of the first and second respondentsthat even during the time when the settlements were entered underSection 12(3) of the I.D. Act, the employees of the serviceAssociation of the District Central Co-operative Banks have notinformed about the payment of additional increments alreadysanctioned to the employees. On receipt of the Government Order,instructions were issued to the District Central Co-operativeBanks to fix the Selection Grade pay to the employees who havecompleted 12 years with effect from 01.07.1994 and adjust thefinancial benefits in the sanction of one increment alreadyextended 6. Various Central Co-operative Banks including the thirdrespondent bank have sought clarification in fixing pay in theSelection Grade Scale as approved by the Government in G.O.No.144dated 6.7.2000. It was after examining the whole subjectcarefully, the above clarification dated 16.11.2001 was givenand in respect of Madurai District Central Co-operative Bank, thesecond respondent has directed that the Selection Grade may begiven to the Sub-staff on completion of 12 years, for JuniorSupervisor/Junior Assistants, Selection Grade may be given oncompletion of 12 years service from 1.7.1974, from which date theabove posts have got merged as Assistant. It was after the saidG.O.144 was issued, the Trade Unions have made representation tothe Government demanding that the scale of pay of next promotionalpost of an employee should be given as his Selection Grade scaleof pay and to add one notional increment in the ordinary gradescale while fixing pay in the Selection Grade scale of pay asgiven to the Government servants and also for employees of Co-operative Whole sale Stores. It was after examining the saiddemand, the Government issued G.O.No.203 Co.operation, Food andConsumer Protection Department, dated 21.05.2001, accepting foradding one notional increment in the ordinary scale while fixingthe pay in Selection Grade. Therefore, according to the first and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ second respondents, while G.O.No.144 prescribes calculation of 12years of service to confer Selection Grade, G.O.No.203 merelysays the fitment procedure in the Selection Grade and thereforeG.O.203 was not in respect of the qualified length of service toconvert Selection Grade. It is also the case of the 1st and 2ndrespondents that neither G.O.No.144 nor G.O.No.203 provides thetotal years of service from the date of joining to be taking intoconsideration for granting Selection Grade. It is the furtherspecific case of the 1st and 2nd respondents that the 2ndrespondent has never directed the 3rd respondent not to implementthe Government Orders and according to the 2nd respondent, theletter dated 16.11.2001 is not arbitrary. 7. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents andperused the records.8. A reference to G.O.Ms.No.203 Co-operation, Food andConsumer Protection Department, dated 21.5.2001 shows that thesaid G.O. was issued by the Government in continuation of theearlier G.O., viz., G.O.Ms.No.144 Co-operation, Food and ConsumerProtection Department, dated 6.7.2000. It was after consideringthe letters of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, theGovernment in G.O.Ms.No.203 has directed that as it was given forthe employees of the Primary Land Development Banks, the fixationof pay was ordered in respect of employees of the Central Co-operative Banks converting them to Selection Grade from 1.7.1994.A reference to the previous G.O.Ms.No.144, dated 6.7.2000 showsthat the Selection Grade was directed to be given after completionof 12 years from 1.7.1994. Therefore, it is clear that whileG.O.Ms.No.144 relates to converting Selection Grade, thesubsequent G.O.Ms.No.203 dated 21.5.2001 relates to the fixationof pay for those who have been given Selection Grade with effectfrom 1.7.1994. It was considering the admitted fact that therehas been merger of various categories of employees in the 3rdrespondent Bank from 1.7.1994, based on the abovesaid GovernmentOrders, the 2nd respondent has clarified that those who havecompleted 12 years of service on 1.7.1994 should be grantedSelection Grade. 9. In respect of Messengers Grade-I, since they have beengranted special pay, they were directed to be given SelectionGrade after completion of 12 years from 1.7.1980. Likewise, inrespect of Messengers Grade-II, they could be given SelectionGrade after completion of 12 years and if they have completed 12years before 1.7.1994, Selection Grade has to be conferred on1.7.1994 and if they have completed Selection Grade after1.7.1994, next day after the completion of 12 years they aredirected to be given Selection Grade. In the said clarification,while dealing with Junior Supervisors it is stated the post of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Junior Supervisor Grade II was merged with Junior SupervisorGrade I as on 1.7.1989. Thereafter, on 1.7.1994, the posts ofJunior Supervisor Grade-I and Junior Assistant were merged withAssistant and therefore, there has been upgrading of the posttwice and as such, Junior Supervisor Grade-I, Junior SupervisorGrade-II and Junior Assistant were directed to be given SelectionGrade 12 years after 1.7.1994. 10. The contention that the wordings of G.O.2(D)No.69, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Department dated 12.11.1993 inrespect of Primary Land Development Banks have to be read part ofG.O.No.144 is not sustainable, since the said G.O.No.69 relates tothe principles evaluated for the purpose of streamlining the cadrestrength for the employees of Primary Land Development Bank basedon the recommendation of Streamlining Committee which has norelevance to the present case at all. Even as recommended by theStreamlining Committee constituted under the above said G.O.,after completion of 10 years or 20 years, Selection Grade orSpecial Grade was to be given with effect from a particular date,viz., from 1.7.1994. But, in the present case in respect of 3rdrespondent Bank when there was a merger of various grades bywhich, as enumerated above, there has been two jump of higher postin these categories, I do not think that fixing of date viz.,1.7.1994 for converting Special Grade is either arbitrary orillegal. G.O.Ms.No.144 and G.O.Ms.No.203 are distinct andindependent and they have nothing to do with G.O.No.69 relatingto the Primary Land Development Bank employees. The merestatement of Registrar of Co-operative Societies in the letterdated 1.6.2001 informing the Special Officers about G.O.No.69dated 12.11.1993 does not mean that the principle contained in thesaid G.O. has to be followed in all circumstances.11. On the face of it, I do not see any contradiction between theimpugned letter of the 2nd respondent dated 16.11.2001 andG.O.Ms.No.144 dated 6.7.2000 and G.O.Ms.No.203, Co-operation, Foodand Consumer Protection Department dated 21.5.2001. As I havestated above, G.O.No.144 dated 6.7.2000 and G.O.No.203, dated21.5.2001 are relating to converting Selection Grade and fixationof Selection Grade Pay respectively and the conversion has beengiven with effect from 1.7.1994 and in fact, it is specificallyadmitted by the respondents 1 and 2 in the counter affidavit thatthey are not giving any direction to the 3rd respondent not toimplement G.O. stated above. In view of the above stated facts, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are alsodismissed. KhSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1.The SecretaryState of Tamil NaduCo.operation, Food andConsumer Protection DepartmentFort St. George, Chennai 600 001.2. The Registrar of Co.oprative SocietiesN.V. Natarajan BuildingNo.170, E.V.R. Periyar High RoadKilpauk, Madras 10.3.The Special OfficerMadurai District CentralCo.operative Bank187 North Veli StreetMadurai 625 001.+ one cc to M/s. Row and Reddy,Advocate sr no. 42301+ one cc to Mr. N. Damodaran, Advocate sr no. 42652+ one cc to Mr. S. Arunachalam, Advocate sr no. 42674+ one cc to M/s. Chandrasekaran Associates sr no. 42924ka(co)_nm(19.07.07) W.P.No.25435 of 2001