TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal Clerks were to be made from the common list of candidates selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. Promotion to different higher posts in different departments was also being made from amongst those employees. The Government of Tamil Nadu, however, by issuing G.O.Ms. No.1290 dated 05.06.1970 excluded the Finance and Law Departments from the one unit system. Whereas posts in the cadre of Assistants, Assistant Section Officers, Typists/Personal Clerks continued to be filled up from the common list of candidates, but in Finance and Law Departments, further promotions were effected from amongst the employees allotted thereto only. Appointments to Finance Department, however, were made at random and probably in terms of the option exercised by any particular candidate. Many persons, who have, thus, been ranking higher were employed in one unit departments whereas some of the candidates ranking lower were employed under fortuitous circumstances in the Finance Department. The employees working in the Finance Department, therefore, obtained promotions much ahead of their peers or even seniors who were discharging their duties in other departments coming within the one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .1998, relevant paragraphs whereof read as under : 10. The Government accordingly direct that :- (i) the pay of the seniors in One Unit who have been recruited to the Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service on or before 28.1.1994, shall be stepped up on par with their juniors in the Finance unit by upgrading the posts held by them to the Scale of pay applicable to the juniors with immediate effect. (ii) The stepping up of their pay on par with the juniors in the Finance Unit by upgrading the posts held by them to the scale of pay applicable to the junior ordered in sub-para (1) above is purely a person-oriented upgradation and no new posts will be created for this purpose. (iii) The upgradation sanctioned for the seniors will lapse in the event of the retirement of the individuals concerned or their promotion to the upgraded post in their normal turn. (iv) The pay of the other seniors in the One Unit in the same cadre will be stepped up on par with immediate juniors in the Finance Unit, with effect from the date of issue of this order. (v) In respect of the Typists/Personal Clerks/Personal Assistants, in One Unit who have not relinquished their right for promot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Secretaries, Deputy Secretaries and Joint Secretaries and in some cases as Additional Secretaries, they should have raised the dispute long back when their juniors had been given promotions in the Finance Department and as the original applications were filed after 20 years, the same could not be entertained. 6. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, respondents filed writ petitions before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. By reason of the impugned judgment dated 21.4.2006, a Division Bench of the High Court, inter alia, held that the cause of action for filing the original application arose only upon issuance of GOMS No.126 dated 29.5.1998 and in that view of the matter it cannot be said that the original applications filed by the respondents suffered from delay and latches and/or otherwise barred by limitation as GOMS No.126 applied also in respect of those who had retired before 29.5.1998. It was also opined that the respondents who had not been in service on or before 28.1.1994 came within the scope and ambit of the said GOMs. Although GOMs 126 provided for operation with prospective effect and by reason thereof past benefits were not made available, the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. Venkataramani, Dr. A.E. Chelliah, senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondents and caveator-in-person on the other hand contended that : (i) from the perusal of the order of Tribunal dated 16.04.1993, it would appear that observations made therein were not confined only to the two employees who had filed the original application but covered the cases of all others similarly situated; (ii) having regard to the fact that the State was required to respond comprehensively to the said observations and that the review application filed by the State in view of the said order has been dismissed, before issuing the GOMs No.126 dated 29.5.1998, the State must be held to have considered the ground realities as also the plight of those employees who had suffered discrimination, irrespective of the fact as to whether they were in service or had retired. (iii) GOMs No.126 dated 29.5.1998 must be given effect to for stepping up the scale of pay of the employees to bring them at par with their juniors in the Finance Department with the object of treating all the employees equally; (iv) no new right having been created by GOMs No.126 dated 29.5.1998, any mini classification or m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the claim petitions filed by the responders were based on the success of their colleagues before the Administrative Tribunal in the year 1994. The employees working in the Finance Department had been promoted long back. We have noticed hereinbefore that some of them retired as Additional Secretaries whereas the respondents retired as merely Assistants. Presumably, promotions to the employees of the Finance Department were given systematically over a long period of time but no such grievance was made nor any application was filed before the appropriate forum. Such grievance, in our opinion, should have been raised or proper application before the Tribunal should have been filed long long back. It was in the aforementioned situation, the Tribunal was of the opinion that their applications were barred by limitation. Assuming that the cause of action for filing such applications arose in view of the observations made by the Tribunal in its order dated 16.4.1993 passed in Original Application No.166 of 1990, but then in terms of the Act and the Rules, the respondents were required to file a proper application within a period of one year only. It is borne out from the records that, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... See also Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam Anr. v. Jaswant Singh Anr. [2006 (12) SCALE 347] and New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh Ors. [2007 (4) SCALE 204]. Only because a cut off date has been fixed, the same per se cannot be said to be arbitrary as some date is required to be fixed for that purpose. Recently, this Court in K.S. Krishnaswamy etc. v. Union of India Anr. [2006 (12) SCALE 307] held : Nakara's case (supra) was a case of revision of pensionary benefits and classification of pensioners into two groups by drawing a cut off line and granting the revised pensionary benefits to employees retiring on or after the cut- off date. The criterion made applicable was being in service and retiring subsequent to the specified date . This Court held that for being eligible for liberalised pension scheme, application of such a criterion is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as it was both arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. It was further held that the employees who retired prior to a specified date, and those who retired thereafter formed one class of pensioners. The attempt to classify them into separate classes/groups for the purpose of pensiona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r a particular period, it did not mean that the government could not amend and change the policy under any circumstances. If the party claiming application of the doctrine acted on the basis of a notification it should have known that such notification was liable to be amended or rescinded at any point of time, if the government felt that it was necessary to do so in public interest. {See also Southern Petrochemical Industries Co. Ltd. v. Electricity Inspector and E.T.I.O. and Ors. [(2007) 5 SCC 447] 14. Interpretation of GOMS No.126 would, no doubt, depend upon the backdrop of the events in which it was made but it is trite that the intention of the maker of the policy must be drawn from the language used therein. For the said purpose, the entire document should be read in its entirety. Original Application No.166 of 1990 was filed by two serving employees. The State could in obedience to the Tribunal's order create two supplementary posts and promote them thereto so as to treat them at par with their juniors working in the Finance Department. The Notification envisages a personal pay by way of stepping up of pay. It was given the prospective effect. No arrear of pay w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the validity of a particular piece of legislation, it may not be the only test which will cover all cases and that there may be other tests also. In answer to the query of the Court he formulates an alternative test in the following words : If there is in fact inequality of treatment and such inequality is not made with a special intention of prejudicing any particular person or persons but is made in the general interest of administration, there is no infringement of article 14. It is at once obvious that, according to the test thus formulated, the validity of State action, legislative or executive, is made entirely dependent on the state of mind of the authority. This test will permit even flagrantly discriminatory State action on the specious plea of good faith and of the subjective view of the executive authority as to the existence of a supposed general interest of administration. This test, if accepted, will amount to adding at the end of article 14 the words except in good faith and in the general interest of administration. This is clearly not permissible for the Court to do. Further, it is obvious that the addition of these words will, in the language of Brewer, J., in G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Articles 14 and 16 by the theory of classified equality which at its worst degenerates into class domination. 20. Reference has also been made by Mr. Venkataramani to a decision of this Court in U.P. Raghavendra Acharya Ors. v. State of Karnataka Ors. [2006 (6) SCALE 23] wherein it was held that pension is not a bounty and it is a deferred salary. This Court is not concerned herein with such a situation. In the said decision, this Court was concerned with a case where an employee retiring on a particular date was to receive 50% of the pension on the enhanced salary. In the fact situation obtaining therein that as the revision of pay and consequent revision in pension had come into force and by reason of a notification, the modality of computing the pension was required to be determined, those who had fulfilled the conditions laid down therein were held to be entitled to the benefits provided for thereunder holding that the concerned employees had a vested right therein. 21. For the reasons aforementioned, we regret to express our inability to agree with the view of the High Court. The impugned order of the High Court is, therefore, set aside. The appeals are allowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
