CHANDRASEKARAN Vs. DIRECTOR INSTITUTE OF ROAD TRANSPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who are four in number seek for directions for respondents to fix the petitioners in the cadre of Junior Assistant with effect from 1.7.1989 in the Scale of Pay of Rs.975-25-1150-30-1660/-.

(2.) The petitioners contend that they were directed to appear before the Institute of Road and Transport Technology, Erode for interview on 3.4.1987 for the post of Junior Assistant. They were appointed only as Clerical Trainees on a consolidated pay of Rs.500/- per month only which was subsequently raised to Rs.650/-. The services of the petitioners were also regularised with a basic pay of Rs.505/- per month in the Scale of Pay of Rs.505-10-555-15-615-20-795-25-845/-. However, the said order was directed to take effect from 1.7.1989 with reference to the first petitioner and from 1.8.1989 with reference to the other petitioners. The petitioners contend that though they were appointed as Clerical Trainees, by proceedings dated 27.7.1989, the petitioners were designated as Record Clerk Trainees. According to the petitioners, they were called for the interview only for the post of Junior Assistant and when the appointments were given, they were designated as Clerical Trainees. Though the petitioners had sought for a clarification, they were told that both the post of Junior Assistant and Clerical Trainees were one and the same and that they would be called as Clerical Trainees during the probation period and once the probation period was over, they would be regularised in the post of Junior Assistant. However, to their surprise, even after the period of probation, they were not regularised. They were all regularised as Record Clerk Trainees by proceedings dated 27.8.1989. At the time when the said proceedings were issued on 27.7.1989, the Fourth Pay Commission Report was force. The very object of regularising the petitioners only as Record Clerk Trainees as aforesaid, was intended to fix their pay at a lower level. If they had been regularised in the cadre of Junior Assistant, their basic pay would be in the Scale of Rs.610-20-730-25-955-30-1075/-. The petitioners also refer to the case of one M. Mohammed Ilayas, who was interviewed and recruited along with the petitioners 1 to 3, and he had been fixed with basic pay of Rs.610/- in the Scale of Pay of Rs.610-1075/-as cited above. The petitioners pointed out such anomalies in their objections. By proceedings dated 22.9.1989, the basic pay was revised in the case of the petitioners at Rs.825/- per month but gave effect to it in respect of the first petitioner only from 1.7.1989 and in the case of the other petitioners only from 1.8.1989. The petitioners were re-designated as Lab Assistant/Clerk. According to the petitioners, the said re-designation was also totally baseless and aimed only at fixing a lower pay scale. The petitioners further contend that the second respondent while applying for affiliation with Bharathiar University for starting a new course, declared in Column No.11 of the declaration that the teaching staffs would be paid UGC Scale and the non-teaching staffs would be paid in accordance with the Pay Scale of Government of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner further submits that in terms of the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission, there was no category of Lab Assistant/Clerk in any of the departments. The petitioners submit that inspite of several representations, they have not been favourably responded. On 30.8.1991, the respondents amended the service rules of the employees of the Institute. In the service rules, the post of Lab Assistant/Clerk is shown as category No.14. Further, it has also been stated that in future, all appointments shall be made in the category of Junior Assistant only. The petitioners further contend that as on the date of implementing the service rules, the scale of pay of Lab Assistant was Rs.625-15-900-20-1200/- and the pay of Junior Assistant was Rs.975-25-1150-30-1660/-.

(3.) In the counter filed by the respondents, it is contended that the Institute of Road Transport (IRT) is a society under Societies Registration Act. It is not a Government Institution nor a Government Aided Institution. The service rules and conditions were decided by governing council of the IRT and their decision was final. On 3.4.1987, the respondents had called for the interview for the post of Junior Assistant and the petitioners were appointed as Clerical Trainees purely on temporary basis on 17.6.1987. The respondents further contend that in terms of the service rules of the IRT, only graduates are eligible for the post of Junior Assistant. At the time of appointment of the employees, the graduates were taken as Junior Assistant Trainees, and the SSLC holders were taken as Clerical Trainees on a consolidated pay of Rs.600/- and Rs.500/- per month respectively. After a period of one year, their consolidated pay was raised to Rs.750/- and Rs.650/- per month. After satisfactory service, the Clerical Trainees were regularised as Record Clerks in the Scale of Pay of Rs.505-10-555-15-615-20-795-25-845/-. The trainees with SSLC qualification were designated as Lab Assistants/Clerks in the scale of Rs.825-15-900-25-1200/-. It is further stated that the service of respondents - 2, 3 and 4 were regularised in the Scale of Pay of Rs.505-845/- as cited above and they were designated as Record Clerks with effect from 1.8.1989 in the Laboratory and Chemistry Department. The first petitioner was regularised on 1.7.1989. All the four petitioners were not graduates at the time of their appointment in 1987 and hence as per the IRT Rules, they were not eligible to be appointed as Junior Assistants. The respondents further contend that while revising the pay for non-teaching staff of IRT, the petitioners were given Rs.825/-, in the Scale of Pay of Rs.825-1200/-. This Scale is applicable to Clerical Trainees as well as Lab Assistants. It is further stated that the Governing Council of IRT has fixed the Pay Scale for the cadre of Clerk at Rs.950-20-1150-25-1500/- subject to subsequent revision. The petitioners were very well aware of the fact that they were appointed only as Clerical Trainees and they have received their appointment order and joined in duty in the said post without any protest. It is further asserted that the appointment of the petitioners and their designation as Clerical Trainees and subsequently as Record Clerks is based only on their educational qualification and as they were not degree-holders.