C GURUVABOYAN Vs. DIRECTOR OF SURVEY AND SETTLEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of the aforesaid ten writ petitions as the subject is common. In all the writ petitions, the petitioners are working in the Survey and Land Department in the posts of Firka Surveyors or Sub Inspectors of Survey. They challenge the common order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal'), dismissing the original applications filed by them. In those original applications, the petitioners had challenged three proceedings which had the effect of depriving them of their original seniority and showing them as juniors which could result in their reversions as also could adversely affect their monetary benefits. The petitioners in effect challenged the order dated 22-9-1995 issued by the Director of Survey and Settlement, Chennai in which, the said authority crystallized the principles of fixing the seniority, the order and the seniority list dated 19-1-1996 wherein, the Assistant Director, in pursuance of the aforementioned order dated 22-9-1995, fixing the temporary seniority of the petitioners, showing them much junior than their original positions and the final order dated 10-10-1996, which is a confirmed seniority list, which has been finalised even after the objections raised by the petitioners. Basically, the petitioners' seniority is fixed on their initial entry into the service in the post of Surveyor on consolidated salary.

(2.) For better appreciation of the controversy, the following facts are necessary:

(3.) Shri R. Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel and Shri M. Kandasamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners firstly contend that though the petitioners were appointed on the post of Consolidated Surveyors somewhat after a few months than the respondents, the fact remains that the petitioners were selected out of these Consolidated Surveyors serving in Salem District on the basis of their performance and, therefore, the petitioners were meritorious candidates so as to be awarded the time-scale even earlier to the respondents. Learned senior counsel points out that the award of the time-scale, almost four years earlier to the respondents, was never demurred by the respondents. Learned senior counsel further points out that in all these years, the petitioners, who were brought on the time-scale by their selection, got much more salary than the respondents and yet the respondent had kept quiet.