State of Tamil Nadu v. Tamil Nadu Arasu Uraga Kudineer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated:-06-01-2006Coram:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAMandThe Hon’ble Mr. Justice CHITRA VENKATARAMANWrit Petition No. 3824 of 20031. State of Tamil Nadu, represented by Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.2. The Secretary to Government, Finance Department (Pay Cell), Fort St. George, Chennai-9.3. The Director of Rural Development, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai-15. .. Petitioners. Vs.1. Tamil Nadu Arasu Uraga Kudineer Thitta Thozhil Nutpa Min Paniyalargal Sangam, by its State President A.N. Angamuthu, Manapparai Panchayat Unon Office, Manapparai, Tiruchi District.2. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai-104... Respondents. Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for recordspertaining to order dated 11-6-2002 made in O.A.No. 1507/2001 on thefile of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai/2nd respondentherein and quash the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mr. D. Krishnakumar, Special Government Pleader:- For petitioner. Mr. P. Jayaraman, Senior counsel for Mr. G. Thangavel:- For 1st Respondent.ORDER(Order of Court was made by P. Sathasivam, J.,) Aggrieved by the order of Tamil Nadu AdministrativeTribunal, Chennai dated 11-6-2002, made in Original Application No.1507 of 2001, Rural Development Department, Finance Department andDirector of Rural Development, Government of Tamil Nadu havepreferred the above writ petition. 2. Tamil Nadu Arasu Uraga Kudineer Thitta Thozhil NutpaMin Paniyalargal Sangam, first respondent herein, through itsPresident A.N. Angamuthu filed the above Original Applicationpraying for direction to the respondents therein (Rural Developmentand Finance Department) to implement G.O.Ms.No. 511, Finance (PC)Department dated 1-8-1992 and G.O.Ms.No. 468, Finance (Pay Cell)Department dated 31-8-1998 in order to revise the pay scale of themembers of the applicant based on their representation submittedfrom the year 1994 onwards and also on 19-10-2000 to enable them toreceive all consequential monetary benefits (vide amended prayer inO.A.No.1507/2001). According to the members of the applicantAssociation, they are employed as Electricians in the Rural WaterSupply Power Pump Maintenance Wing in the Tamil Nadu Government.The pay scale of the members of the Association was Rs.275-475.Thereafter it was revised as 610-1075. Subsequently, the pay wasrevised as Rs.1100-1660 as per G.O.Ms.No.511 Finance (Pay Cell)Department dated 1-8-92. It is also their case that the same wasfollowed by all the departments in the Tamil Nadu Government witheffect from 1-6-88. In G.O. Ms.No. 666 Finance Department dated 27-6-99, the revised scale of pay was confirmed. Since there was nofavourable order by the Government, by revising their scale of payas per their representation dated 6-7-99 and 16-10-2000, theyapproached the Tribunal for necessary direction as stated above. 3. It is seen from the order impugned, the Tribunalordered Notice of Motion on 28-3-2001. The respondents/departmentshave not filed reply conveying their stand. The Tribunal in theabsence of reply by the department concerned, by relying onG.O.Ms.No. 511 Finance Department dated 1-8-92 and after findingthat the uniform pay fixed under the Government Order cannot bedenied to the members of the applicant, directed that they shall begiven the scale of pay as per G.O.Ms.No. 511, Finance (Pay Cell)Department dated 1-8-92 and G.O.Ms.No. 468, Finance (Pay Cell)Department, dated 31-8-98 by revising their pay scales with effect https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ from the year 1994 and also directed that the arrears shall be paidafter such re-fixation within a period of 6 months from the date ofits order. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition. 4. Heard Mr. D. Krishnakumar, learned Special GovernmentPleader for petitioners and Mr. P. Jayaraman, learned senior counselfor first respondent-Sangam. 5. The only point for consideration in this writ petitionis, whether the order of the Tribunal issuing direction forrevising the scale of pay as per G.O.Ms.No.511 Finance Departmentdated 1-8-92 and G.O.Ms.No. 468 Finance Department dated 31-8-98 issustainable? 6. Before considering the above issue, it is to be notedthat the department, namely, Rural Development and FinanceDepartment (Pay Cell) have not filed reply affidavit conveying theirstand before the Tribunal. In such a circumstance, the Tribunalwithout analysing the claim of the applicant Sangam, basing relianceon G.O.Ms.No. 511 Finance Department, dated 1-8-92, issued positivedirection for revision of scale of pay to the members of theAssociation. 7. Before the Tribunal, it was the specific case of theAssociation that the pay scale for the members of the Associationwas initially fixed in the pay scale of Rs.275-475 and thereafter itwas revised as Rs.610-1075 as per G.O.Ms.No. 184 Finance Pay CellDepartment dated 21-2-1990. Subsequently, the above pay scalewas revised as Rs.1100-1660 as per G.O.Ms.No. 511 Finance (Pay Cell)dated 1-8-1992 and the same was followed by all the Departmentconcerned in Tamil Nadu Government with retrospective effect from 1-6-1988 as it has been specifically stipulated-vide G.O.Ms.No. 666Finance Department dated 27-6-1989 that the effective date ofrevised pay scale was asserted and confirmed as 1-6-1988. Though theDepartment has not filed reply before the Tribunal controverting thefactual details, in the affidavit filed before this Court, it isspecifically stated that the information furnished by the applicant-Association are factually incorrect. It is the case of theDepartment that Fourth Pay Commission has recommended the revisionof pay for the post of Electrician in the Rural DevelopmentDepartment as Rs.505-845 against the pre-revised scale of pay ofRs.295-475. Subsequent to the issue of Fourth Tamil Nadu PayCommission orders, employees of various associations have expressedtheir dissatisfaction in the scales of pay allowed by the FourthPay Commission. Based on the requests of persons concerned, theGovernment have constituted “One Man Committee”. The One ManCommittee while examining the requests for employees in varioustrade posts like Electrician, Fitter, Welder etc., in variousdepartments has noticed that no uniform pattern has been followed inprescribing technical qualification for those posts. The minimumqualification for admission to ITI course is SSLC passed or failed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ depending on the trade. The One Man Committee was of the view thatwith the availability of ITI holders, the qualification of ITICertificate should be invariably adopted for all trade posts in alldepartments. The Committee considered that the trade posts might beclassified broadly into two groups based on the qualificationsprescribed for the posts granting the pay scales as: i) SSLC passed plus I.T.I .. Rs.610-1075 ii) SSLC failed plus I.T.I. .. Rs.555-970It is the definite case of the Department that for the post ofElectrician, no revision was made based on the recommendation of theOne Man Committee till the constitution of Fifth Pay Commission. Itis also their case that while recommending the revised scale of payfor the said post by the Fifth Pay Commission, the post was placedon Rs.825 – 1200 against the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.505-845on par with Group II trade posts and also the recommendation made inthe previous Pay Commission. Subsequently, the Government haveexamined the request and orders were issued revising the scale ofpay from Rs.825-1200 to Rs.950-1500 on par with that of Group Itrade post and also the revision was made in the previous PayCommission from Rs.505-845 to Rs.610-1075 with effect from 1-10-84.By pointing out the above details, it is the case of the petitionersthat there is no injustice caused to the said category. 8. Coming to G.O.Ms.No. 511 Finance (Pay Cell) Departmentdated 1-8-1992, the post of Electrician in the Rural DevelopmentDepartment is sanctioned with the scale of Rs.950-1500 on par withthat of trade posts. Learned Special Government Pleader appearingfor the petitioners has brought to our notice G.O.Ms.No. 141 RuralDevelopment (P3) Department dated 3-8-95 which clearly shows that atthe time of creation of 384 posts of Electrician, sanction wasaccorded in the scale of pay of Rs.950-20—1150-25-1500. 9. It is brought to our notice that the scale of pay forthe post of Electrician in the Rural Development Department wasalready revised as Rs.950-1500 based on the qualification for thepost which is SSLC plus I.T.I in which post is equivalent to GradeII trade posts. The Government have issued orders for the revisionof scale of pay for the post of Electrician in the Rural Developmentfrom Rs.505-845 to Rs.610-1075 in the pre-revised scale of paytaking note of the qualification prescribed for the post ofElectrician is SSLC with I.T.I as it falls under Group I. In such acircumstance, as rightly pointed out by the learned SpecialGovernment Pleader, the question of revising the scale of pay forthe post of Electrician from Rs.950—1500 to Rs.1100-1660 does notarise as it is already equivalent to Grade II trade posts sincethere is no Grade I trade post in Rural Development Department. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10. It is also brought to our notice that in the case ofthe post of Electrician, no revision was made based on the One ManCommittee recommendation till the constitution of the Fifth PayCommission. Only in the Fifth Pay Commission, the post ofElectrician was placed on Rs.825-1200 against the pre-revised scaleof pay of Rs.505-845 on par with Group II trade posts.Subsequently, the Government have examined the request of theAssociation and orders were issued revising the scale of pay fromRs.825-1200 to Rs.950-1500. It is true that orders were issued inG.O.Ms.No. 511, Finance (PC) Department dated 1-8-92 stating thatall Grade-II trade posts such as Wiremen, Plumber, Carpenter, etc.,hitherto classified under Group II in G.O.Ms.No. 762, Finance (PC)Department dated 20-8-86 requiring I.T.I. certificate irrespectiveof academic qualification be allowed the scale of pay of Rs.950-1500and all such Grade-I posts coming under this category be allowed thescale of pay of Rs.1100-1660. It is demonstrated before us that thepost of Electrician in the Rural Development Department wassanctioned with the scale of Rs.950-1500 on par with that of tradeposts (vide G.O.Ms.No. 141 Rural Development Department dated 3-8-95). Unfortunately, this relevant information was not brought tothe notice of the Tribunal. As pointed out earlier, it is thedefinite case of the Department that though the nomenclature of thepost, namely, Electrician is the same in all departments, it istheir categorical stand that the Electrician post in the RuralDevelopment Department is Grade II category post and according tothem, there is no Grade I post. However, as rightly pointed out, inG.O.Ms.No. 511 dated 1-8-92, the Government have directed that allGrade II trade posts such as Wiremen, Plumber, Carpenter, etc.,hitherto classified under Group II in G.O.Ms.No. 762, Finance (PC)Department dated 20-8-86 requiring I.T.I. certificate irrespectiveof academic qualification be allowed the scale of pay of Rs.950-1500and all such Grade I posts coming under this category be allowed thescale of pay Rs.1100-1660. In the Sixth Pay Commission the existingscale of pay of Rs.950-1500 was changed into Rs.3050-4590. 11. It is also brought to our notice that the direction ofthe Tribunal cannot be implemented since in G.O.Ms.No. 468 Finance(PC) Department 31-8-98, the Government revised the scale of payonly to Electrician-Grade I post and not to Grade-II. The perusalof the said Government Order which is available at page 13 of theadditional typed-set of papers filed by the Special GovernmentPleader, makes it clear that after accepting the recommendation ofthe Official Committee and after examination, the Government revisedthe scale of pay only to Grade I Electrician and not Grade II. Insuch a circumstance, as rightly pointed out, the question ofrevising the scale of pay for the post of Electrician does not ariseand G.O.Ms.No. 468 Finance Department dated 31-8-98 is notapplicable to the Grade II posts. We have already pointed out thedefinite stand of the Department that there is no Grade I post inRural Development, and this relevant fact was neither placed beforethe Tribunal nor considered by it. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

12. Mr. P. Jayaraman, learned senior counsel appearingfor the first respondent, relied on several decisions, namely, (i)Y.K. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA [1988 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 750];(ii) BHAGWAN SAHAI CARPENTER v. UNION OF INDIA [(1989) 2 SupremeCourt Cases 299] (iii) F.C.I. WORKERS’ UNION v. F.C.I [AIR 1990Supreme Court 2178] (iv) SANDEEP KUMAR v. STATE OF U.P. [1993 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 525] and (v) UNION OF INDIA v. BIJOY LALGHOSH [AIR 1998 Supreme Court 1192] to show that when posts in twowings of the same Government department are identical and involvesame nature of duties, denial of parity in pay would be violate ofArticles 14, 16 and 39 (d) of the Constitution of India. Absolutelythere is no quarrel with regard to the proposition laid down inthose decisions. As pointed out by the department, there is noGrade I trade post in Rural Development Department and according tothem, the post of Electrician in the said department is Grade IItrade post. In such a circumstance, we are of the view that thedecisions relied on by the learned senior counsel for the firstrespondent are not directly applicable to the case on hand. 13. In the earlier part of our order, we have referredto the fact of non-filing of reply by the department. It is truethat in spite of affording sufficient opportunity, unfortunately thedepartment did not file their defence before the Tribunal and evenat the time of argument, relevant information was not brought to itsnotice. In this regard, it will be useful to refer a decision ofthe Supreme Court in STATE OF HARYANA v. HARYANA CIVIL SECRETARIATPERSONAL STAFF ASSOCIATION, reported in (2002) 6 Supreme Court Cases72 wherein Their Lordships have held that while exercisingjurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the reliefcannot be granted merely because averment in writ petition had notbeen specifically rebutted and High Court is bound to consider theaverment on its true merits before granting relief to writpetitioner. After referring to the decision in the case ofSECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT v. W.B. REGISTRATION SERVICEASSOCIATION (1993 Supp (1) SCC 153), it was held: (para 10) “10. It is to be kept in mind that the claim ofequal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right vestedin any employee though it is a constitutional goal to beachieved by the Government. Fixation of pay anddetermination of parity in duties and responsibilities isa complex matter which is for the executive to discharge.While taking a decision in the matter, several relevantfactors, some of which have been noted by this Court inthe decided case, are to be considered keeping in view theprevailing financial position and capacity of the StateGovernment to bear the additional liability of a revisedscale of pay. It is also to be kept in mind that thepriority given to different types of posts under theprevailing policies of the State Government is also a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ relevant factor for consideration by the State Government.In the context of the complex nature of issues involved,the far-reaching consequences of a decision in the matterand its impact on the administration of the StateGovernment, courts have taken the view that ordinarilycourts should not try to delve deep into administrativedecisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity. Thatis not to say that the matter is not justifiable or thatthe courts cannot entertain any proceeding against suchadministrative decision taken by the Government. Thecourts should approach such matters with restraint andinterfere only when they are satisfied that the decisionof the Government is patently irrational, unjust andprejudicial to a section of employees and the Governmentwhile taking the decision has ignored factors which arematerial and relevant for a decision in the matter. Evenin a case where the court holds the order passed by theGovernment to be unsustainable then ordinarily a directionshould be given to the State Government or the authoritytaking the decision to reconsider the matter and pass aproper order. The court should avoid giving a declarationgranting a particular scale of pay and compelling theGovernment to implement the same…..” In this regard, it is useful to refer the comparative tablefurnished by the learned Special Government Pleader regarding thequalification and regulation of Electricians in TWAD Board and TamilNadu Rural Development Department. COMPARATIVE TABLE 1) QUALIFICATION AND REGULATION OF ELECTRICIANSIN TWAD BOARD IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.ELECTRICIAN GRADE-I ELECTRICIANBy promotion Experience as 1. Must have completed Electrician SSLC, and Grade II for a 2. Must possess Indus- period of not less trial Training than three years. Institute Certificate in the Trade of Electrician with two years of experience in the Electrical work. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ By Direct 1. Must have passed G.O.270,Rural recruitment SSLC or its Development Depart-or recruitment equivalent. ment dated 21-12-by transfer 1992. 2. Must possess ITI certificate 3. Practical experience for a period of not less than 2 years.ELECTRICIAN GRADE.IIBy Direct 1. Must have passedrecruitment VIIIth Standard in or recruitment a recognised School.by transfer. 2. Must possess ITI Certificate in the Trade of Electrician with two years experience in the type of work.2) NATURE OF DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF ELECTRICIANS. In TWAD Board In RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT The Electricians should be Maintenance of poweravailable in the Pump Room pumps in Panchayatduring entire duty time and Union areas.watch the running of pumpset duly noting the Volt Meter,Ammeter, power cut etc., andmaintenance of Log Books. His work will be highly risky and responsible where comparedwith the work of fitters.Further, the pumpsets providedwith H.T. Supply and various Electrical installations are also provided as per I.E Rulesand the Electricians should give more attention in maintaining the pumping plants. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3) SCALE OF PAY OF ELECTRICIANIn TWAD Board In RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.In III Pay Commission In III Pay CommissionELECTRICIAN Grade I ELECTRICIAN325-10-445-15-550 295-5-315-10-475ELECTRICIAN Grade II295-5-315-10-475In IV Pay Commission In IV Pay CommissionELECTRICIAN Grade I ELECTRICIAN610-1075 555-970ELECTRICIAN GRADE II555-970In V Pay Commission In V Pay CommissionELECTRICIAN GRADE I ELECTRICIAN1100-1660 950-1500ELECTRICIAN GRADE II950-1500In VI Pay Commission In VI Pay CommissionELECTRICIAN GRADE I ELECTRICIAN4000.60003050-4590ELECTRICIAN GRADE II3050-45904) FINANCIAL POSITIONIn TWAD BOARD In RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ By Departmental Code Salary paid from revolving fund/ Panchayat Union General Fund.”In the light of these details, by applying the ratio laid down inthe above referred decision, we are satisfied that the Tribunal isnot justified in issuing positive direction granting a particularscale of pay and compelling the Government to implement the same. 14. In UNION OF INDIA v. TARIT RANJAN DAS, reportedin 2003 AIR SCW 7082, Their Lordships have quoted the followingpassage as expressed by three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court inSTATE BANK OF INDIA v. M. GANESH BABU (2002 (4) SCC 556) at para 16:(para 7) “The principle of equal pay for equal workhas been considered and applied in many reporteddecisions of this Court. The principle has beenadequately explained and crystallized and sufficientlyreiterated in a catena of decisions of this Court. Itis well settled that equal pay must depend upon thenature of work done. It cannot be judged by the merevolume of work, there may be qualitative difference asregards reliability and responsibility. Functions maybe the same but the responsibilities made a difference.One cannot deny that often the difference is a matter ofdegree and that there is an element of value judgment bythose who are charged with the administration in fixingthe scales of pay and other conditions of service. Solong as such value judgment is made bona fide,reasonably on an intelligible criterion which has arational nexus with the object of differentiation, suchdifferentiation will not amount to discrimination. Theprinciple is not always easy to apply as there areinherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating thework done by different persons in differentorganizations, or even in the same organisation.Differentiation in pay scales of persons holding sameposts and performing similar work on the basis ofdifference in the degree of responsibility, reliabilityand confidentiality would be a valid differentiation.The judgment of administrative authorities concerningthe responsibilities which attach to the post, and thedegree of reliability expected to an incumbent, would bea value judgment of the authorities concerned which, ifarrived at bona fide, reasonably and rationally, was notopen to interference by the Court.” https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ In para 9, the Court held that, “9… The person who asserts that there is equalityhas to prove it. The equality is not based on designationor the nature of work alone. There are several otherfactors like, responsibilities, reliabilities, experience,confidentiality involved, functional need and requirementscommensurate with the position in the hierarchy, thequalifications required which are equally relevant.” Para 11 of the judgement is also relevant: “11. In the case of State of U.P. v. J.P.Chaurasia [1989 (1) SCC 121] it was pointed out thatwhether two posts are equal or should carry the equalpay, depends on several factors. It was not depend justupon either the nature of work or the volume of workdone. Primarily it requires among others, evaluation ofduties and responsibilities of the respective posts bythe Competent Authorities constituted for the purposeand Courts cannot ordinately substitute themselves inthe place of those authorities. The quantity of work maybe the same but the quality may be different. Thatcannot be determined by relying upon averments inaffidavits of interested parties. It must be determinedby expert bodies like Pay Commission and the Government,who would be the best Judges, to evaluate the nature ofduty, responsibility and all relevant factors. The sameview was reiterated in the case of State of M.P. v.Pramod Bhartiya [1993 (1) SCC 539] by a three-JudgeBench of this Court. In the case of Shyam Babu Verma v.Union of India [1994 (2) SCC 521] a claim for equal payby a group of Pharmacists was rejected saying that theclassification made by a body of experts after fullstudy and analysis of the work, should not be disturbedexcept for strong reasons which indicate that theclassification made was unreasonable.” 15. From the materials furnished by the Department, weare satisfied that the post of Electrician in the Rural DevelopmentDepartment is sanctioned with the scale of Rs.950-1500 on par withthat of trade post, namely, Grade II and that there is no Grade Itrade post in that department. We have already referred to the factthat in G.O.Ms.No. 468 Finance dated 31-8-98, scale of pay wasrevised only to Grade I post and not Grade II. We also referred toqualification, nature of work being performed in TWAD Board as wellas in Rural Development Department. As stated in (2002) 6 SupremeCourt Cases 72 (cited supra), though the Department failed to placeall the above mentioned relevant facts before the Tribunal, it isthe bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the averments in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petition filed by the Association on its true merits before issuingsuch positive direction. Even in the application filed before theTribunal, the Association has not highlighted their entitlementexcept referring to G.O.Ms.No. 511, Finance Department, dated 1-8-92. We are satisfied that the Tribunal has committed an error innot considering all the relevant materials. 16. In the light of what is stated above, the order ofthe Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal dated 11-6-2002 made inO.A.No. 1507 of 2001 is quashed and the Writ Petition is allowed.No costs. 06-01-2006R.B.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai-104.1 cc to the Government Pleader SR.11091 cc to Mr.G.Thangavel, Advocate, SR.1225rl (co)dv/19.1.06 Order in W.P.No.3824 of 2003