V. MANOHARAN Vs. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, TOURISM, CULTURE AND RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition, challenging the Proceeding No.1744/A2/2011, dated 31.03.2016, issued by the third respondent, rejecting the representation made to antedate the financial benefit granted to him in the Selection Grade of Receptionist, as granted to his counterparts/Junior Assistants from 01.01.2007, by quashing the order of the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.237, Tourism, Culture and Religions Endowments (T2-2) Department, dated 24.09.2014, and also the consequential orders passed subsequently.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he joined the service of the third respondent in the year 1988 and he got selection grade scale in the year 1998. Pursuant to the VI Pay Commission recommendations, which came into force from 01.01.2006, the scales of pay of the employees were revised at par with their counterparts in the Government. According to the resolution of the Government, their pay was also enhanced from the said date at par with Junior Assistants/Typists of the entry grade i.e., from Grade Pay of Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 2400/-. By a subsequent resolution, notional benefit was granted from 01.01.2006, but, actual financial benefit was granted from 01.02.2011, but, for selection grade employees, their grade pay was revised from the said date, but the actual financial benefit was given from 01.01.2007. Therefore, a representation was made by the petitioner on 02.05.2012 in that regard, which was rejected by the third respondent. The writ petitioner has challenged the same on the ground that when his counterparts in the Government, namely, Junior Assistants and Accountants in the selection grade have been granted the benefit from 01.01.2007, there was no apparent reason to reject such benefit to the petitioner. Hence, this Writ Petition by the petitioner with the prayer to grant financial benefit from 01.01.2007, as he fulfilled the other criteria.

(3.) No counter affidavit has been filed by the State Government. But, the fourth respondent, admits that though a resolution had been passed by the Board, the same was not approved by the Government, and, therefore, the request of the petitioner has been rejected.