G BALARAMAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners were appointed as Junior Assistants and Typists. While they were working as Junior Assistants and Typists, in the year 1988 about 50 vacancies arose in the post of Assistant Section Officer. As the passing of Special Tests were not mandatory earlier, the petitioners names were included in the panel of March 1988. THE petitioners were holding the posts in the feeder category and were eligible for promotion but for the qualifications prescribed with retrospective effect. In view of the urgent requirement to fill up the posts, temporary promotions were given to the petitioners subject to the condition that they pass the Special Tests within a period of two years. Most of the petitioners passed the Special Tests within the period of two years. THE Honourable Chief Justice was pleased to relax Rule 15(c) of the Madras High Court Service Rules in favour of the remaining unqualified persons and extend the time for passing the Special Tests from time to time. THE remaining petitioners also passed the Special Tests within the extended period so granted. Rule 15 (d) of the High Court Service Rules provides that persons appointed on temporary basis shall be paid either the substantive pay or the minimum of pay in the promotional post whichever is higher. Since the minimum of the pay in the promotional post was lower than the substantive pay, the petitioners were permitted to draw their substantive pay and given annual increments in their substantive posts.

(2.) ON the acceptance of the recommendations of the V Pay Commission, the pay scales of staff underwent revision with effect from 1.6.1988. The revised scale of pay of Assistant Section Officer was fixed at Rs.1640-2900. The pay of the petitioners was fixed at Rs.1640 on 1.6.1988. The pay of the qualified persons was however fixed at Rs.1700/- with effect from 1.6.1988. The petitioners were not given increments until they passed the Special Tests. They submitted representations seeking intervention of the Honourable Chief Justice for redressal of their grievance.

(3.) THE Government has not filed any counter. But, the learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out the counter affidavit filed by the Government in W.P.No.1321 of 1999, wherein, the Government has accepted the fact that the similarly placed persons in the Secretariat have been granted increments for the unqualified period. In a similar situation, THE Government has also passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.358 P&AR (Per-I), dated 13.8.1990 on the basis of the judgment of this Honourable High Court, in W.A.Nos.1096 and 1097 of 1985 dated 24.1.1990, wherein in para 2 it has been stated that the petitioners shall be entitled to increments from the date from which they become qualified and the period of their temporary service shall be counted for increment (i.e.) increments have to be computed from the date of first appointment in temporary services but shall not be entitled for arrears on the basis of such computation of increments for the unqualified period. In para 3 of the said G.O., reference has been made that the High Court has not accepted the request for regularization of services from the date of temporary appointment but has ordered that the increments shall be allowed to them from the dates of their temporary appointments as Assistant Section Officer without arrears for the unqualified period. A specific mention has also been made in the said G.O. that the orders of the High Court are applicable to Assistants promoted as Assistant Section Officer from the year 1969 onwards.