P KUMARAVELU Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioners had been appointed, originally, in the Non-provincialised Work-charged Establishment, in various posts, like Work Superintendent, Work Inspector, Head Mazdoor etc. Later, the said posts had been re-designated as Work Inspector. Based on a Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No,95, Public Works Department, dated 9.1.1971, the services of the petitioners had been provincialised, with effect from 24.11.1970, as Work Inspectors Grade-I, and they were drawing the pay of Work Inspector Grade-I, on the date of provincialisation. THErefore, in accordance with Memorandum No.19918/R-2/71-12, dated 29.11.1971, the services of the petitioners were provincialised in the posts held by them, as on 24.11.1970, even if they had not completed five years of service in their posts. THEreafter, the Government had approved the time scales of pay for the Provincialised Work-charged Establishment members, under G.O.Ms.No.142, Public Works Department, dated 3.2.1973. In Annexure-II to the said Government Order, the various posts were merged into single categories. While doing so, the posts of Maistry Grade-I , Work Superintendent, Work Inspector, Technical Assistant etc., were wrongly brought under the category of Inspector Grade-II. As such, it amounted to reduction in rank and status. In fact, the Government Memorandum, dated 29.11.1971, had already given protection for the posts held by the petitioners and therefore, they could not be reduced in rank to Grade-II. Further, G.O.Ms.No.142, Public Works Department, dated 3.2.1973, had also given pay protection, in Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said Government Order and hence, categorising them as Work Inspector Grade-II, is erroneous.

(3.) NO reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents.