M.CHANDRIKA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petitioner was working in the post of Lady Demonstrator and she was relieved from the said service and appointed in the services of Directorate of Agriculture Department and she applied for the posting order with a request to give her an alternative posting, based on the qualification and thereafter, the Government has issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.665, Agriculture Department dated 05.09.1990, wherein the Government has given instructions that the seven Lady Demonstrators mentioned in the panel above may be posted temporarily in the post of Field Demonstration Officer in the scale of pay of Rs.750-12-870-14-940 and based on the Government Order, the respondent Department has issued the appointment order dated 02.01.1991 and she was appointed in the said post and she gave several representations to regularise the services from the date of initial appointment and treat the absence period between 29.12.1987 to 02.01.1991 as a duty period as per the Fundamental Rules 9(3) and pay arrears, however, there was no reply from the respondents.

(2.) According to the petitioner, similarly placed persons like that of the petitioner namely Mrs.I.Margarate and Mrs.T.Kayalvizhi were filed Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.2953/2006 and 23987 of 2007 before this Court. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid Writ Petitions, insofar as Mrs.I.Margaret is concerned, the Government has passed G.O.(Ms.) No.36, Agriculture Department dated 25.02.2020, fixed the scale of pay as Rs.1,200/- and as per G.O.Ms.No.51, Agriculture Department, dated 11.03.2010, fixed the scale of pay of the writ petitioner as on 01.06.1988 as Rs.755/- and in respect of one Mrs.Kayalvizhi is concerned, revised the pay scale as Rs.1,200/- as on 01.06.1988. Similar to the other persons, the service of the writ petitioner was also regularied by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.51, Agriculture Department dated 11.03.2010 for a period from 29.12.1987 to 01.01.1991 as duty and fixed the scale of pay as Rs.775/- instead of Rs.1,200/-, which was given to Mrs.Margaret, who is junior to the writ petitioner. Therefore, the writ petitioner sought for same benefit already granted to the aforesaid Mrs.Margaret and Mrs.Kayalvizhi by fixing the scale of pay as Rs.1,200/- as on 01.06.1998. The Government has rejected the said claim of the petitioner on the simple ground that there is no provision under the Rules to revise the scale of pay of the writ petitioner and challenging the rejection order passed by the respondent, filed this Writ Petition.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that all the aforesaid facts were stated in the representation, but the said fact was not duly considered by the respondents and simply rejected it by passing non speaking order dated 07.04.2015 and hence, the said aforesaid order is liable to be rejected.