S RAMACHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On abolition of the Tribunal, the Original Application in O.A.No.9285 of 1999 filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.34056 of 2006.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Bill Collector in the Nagercoil Municipality on 01.08.1977 and after five years of service, he was promoted as a Junior Assistant on 30.10.1982. Whileso, one C.Pechiammal, was also appointed as a Bill Collector on 01.02.1978. The said C.Pechiammal, is a junior to the petitioner in service and the scale of pay fixed for the petitioner and the said C.Pechiammal, is an identical scale of pay at the time of their initial appointments. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said C.Pechiammal, being a junior to the petitioner in service, she was getting more scale of pay than him. On the basis of G.O.Ms.No. 57 dated 28.01.1991, the petitioner is entitled to get the same scale of pay by way of stepping up on par with that of his junior.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after compliance of necessary conditions such as the departmental examination and the minimum requirements, the petitioner was promoted as Junior Assistant. Whereas, the said C.Pechiammal, having not opted for Departmental Examination, a requisite qualification for getting promotion, she continued in the same post as Bill Collector and reached the stage of Selection Grade in the same post. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that had the petitioner continued in his substantive post as Bill Collector, he would have also reached the Selection Grade in that post and as a result, he would have also got more scale of pay than his junior C.Pechiammal. On that basis, it was submitted that when the said C.Pechiammal, was given Selection Grade, her scale of pay was fixed at Rs.1200-30-1560-40-2040 from 01.06.1988. Whereas, the petitioner's scale of pay was fixed unfortunately at Rs.975-25-1150-30-1660 from 01.06.1988, without any basis. Admittedly, the petitioner being a senior in service, as he was appointed as Bill Collector on 01.08.1977, and the said C.Pechiammal, was appointed on 01.02.1978, the respondents should have fixed the same scale of pay on par with C.Pechiammal. On the basis of the G.O.Ms.No. 57 dated 28.01.1991, since the same was not considered, the petitioner gave number of representations requesting the respondents to consider the same. But there was no response on the side of the respondents and the plight of the petitioner was also not considered by them. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to file an application in O.A.No.9285 of 1998, on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and the same was transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.34056 of 2006.