R KANNAN Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the arguments of Mr. Balan Haridass, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. Vaidyanathan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and have perused the records.

(2.) THE ten petitioners were all retired from service after holding various posts as found in paragraph 4 of the affidavit somewhere between 31. 3. 2001 and 31. 7. 2002. In this petition, the petitioners are challenging the proceedings of the respondent Tamil Nadu Electricity Board [for short, 'board'] made in (Per) B. P. (FB) No. 58 (Secretariat Branch) dated 14. 11. 2005 insofar as it fails to give fitment benefit and service weightage and for a direction to the respondent to revise the salary / wages of the petitioners with effect from 01. 12. 2000 by giving fitment benefit and service weightage and arrive at the pension of the petitioners based on their revised salary / wages on the date of retirement, pay the arrears as given to persons who retired from 01. 12. 2002 onwards.

(3.) THE proceedings of the Board dated 14. 11. 2005 were issued in the context where the wage revision was effected with effect from 01. 12. 2002. It was stated in the earlier board proceedings dated 16. 10. 2005 that though the revision of wages was due from 01. 12. 2000, the wages would be revised only from 01. 12. 2002 and for the intervening period from 01. 12. 2000 to 30. 11. 2002, a consolidated amount of rs. 2400/- was to be paid at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month. It was also ordered that in respect of the employees, who retired / resigned / expired between 01. 12. 2000 and 30. 11. 2002, a consolidated amount would be paid proportionately. Thereafter, the Board received representations from employees, who retired between 01. 12. 2000 and 30. 11. 2002 for increased pension and retirement benefits as the revision of wages was due in their cases also from 01. 12. 2000. But they were not covered by the orders of revision of wages which was given effect to from 01. 12. 2002. Considering their representations, the Board issued the order dated 14. 11. 2005, which is impugned in this writ petition and the following passage found in the impugned order is extracted below: