Tamil Nadu Rural Development Engineers And Assistant Engineers Association vs Government Of Tamil Nadu And Others

Sl. No.,"Existing Scale of pay

(w.e.f. 1-1-96)",Revised Pay (Pay Band),Revised Grade Pay,,,

1.,5000-8000,9300-34800,"4,200",,,

2.,5300-8300,9300-34800,"4,300",,,

3.,5500-9000,9300-34800,"4,400",,,

4.,5900-9900,9300-34800,"4,500",,,

5.,6500-10500,9300-34800,"4,600",,,

6.,6500-11100,9300-34800,"4,700â€​",,,

1,2,3,4,5,6,7

S. No.,"Name of the

Post/

Department","Pre-Revised

Scale of Pay","Corresponding

revised scale

of pay + G.P.","Scale of pay

granted based

on OMC

subsequent

GOS","Scale of Pay

as per G.O.Ms

/No.71 dated

26.02.2011","Revised Scale

of pay

,,Rs.,Rs.,Rs.,Rs.,Rs.

1 to 32,….,….,….,….,….,….

XII,PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,,,,,

33.,"Assistant

Engineer",6500-11100,"9300-34800

+4700","15600-39100

+5400","15600-39100

+5100","9300-34800

+5100

34.,"Assistant

Executive

Engineer",8000-13500,"15600-39100

+5400","15600-39100

+6600","15600-39100

+5400","15600-39100

+5400

35.,"Executive

Engineer",10000-15200,"15600-39100

+6600","15600-39100

+7600","15600-39100

+6600","15600-39100

+6600

36.,"Head

Draughting

Officer",9100-14050,"15600-39100

+5700","15600-39100

+6600","15600-39100

+5700","15600-39100

+5700

to 52.,…,…,…,…,…,…

Two sets of appeals have been filed in this Court challenging the decision of the Division Bench. The first set is by the Government Employees,,,,,,

and their Associations submitting inter alia that once the process undertaken by the State Government was found to be in violation of the principles of,,,,,,

natural justice, complete benefit of setting aside the impugned decisions ought to have been extended. It is also submitted that the exercise undertaken",,,,,,

by the One Man Commission was a proper exercise and its recommendations were accepted by the State Government after considering the matter,,,,,,

carefully and thus there was no occasion for the State Government to take any different view in the matter. On the other hand, the second set of",,,,,,

appeals, at the instance of the State Government submits inter alia that the exercise undertaken by the PGRC was after giving due opportunity to the",,,,,,

concerned employees and their Associations and as such the High Court was not justified in setting aside GO No.242 seeking to implement the,,,,,,

recommendations given by the PGRC. By interim order passed in these matters, stay of operation of the judgment under appeal, to the extent fresh",,,,,,

PGRC was directed to be set up, was granted by this Court which status is still continuing.",,,,,,

We heard Mr. Dushyant Dave, Mr. R. Venkataramani, Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Mr. P. S. Patwalia, Mr. Vinay Navare, learned Senior Advocates",,,,,,

and Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned Advocate for the appellants in the first set of appeals and Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned Advocate General for the",,,,,,

State. It was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Government Employees and their Associations that having accepted the,,,,,,

recommendations made by the One Man Commission and having given benefits in terms of said recommendations, the State Government could not",,,,,,

have lowered the pay scales of the concerned employees. On the other hand, it is the submission of the State that the acceptance of the",,,,,,

recommendations of the One Man Commission resulted in greater anomalies; that the level of Assistant Engineers, which is the entry level in various",,,,,,

Engineering services was wrongly clubbed with other entry level services like Assistant Surgeons; and that as a result of upward revision for Assistant,,,,,,

Engineers the gap between the level of the Assistant Engineers and the subordinate ranks got widened to a considerable level while the Assistant,,,,,,

Engineers and the promotional level for Assistant Engineer were brought almost at the same levels. According to the learned Advocate General,",,,,,,

various such anomalies were required to be sorted out which in turn made the State Government to constitute the PGRC. According to the State,,,,,,

Government, normally the pay scales afforded to equivalent ranks in the Central Government are higher than the ranks in the State Government but",,,,,,

the entry level of Assistant Engineers in the State Government, as a result of the recommendations of the One Man Commission was kept at a level",,,,,,

far too higher than their counterparts in the Central Government.,,,,,,

The Tabulated Chart which is part of GO No.242 indicates very clearly that the Assistant Engineers who were in the pre-revised pay scale of,,,,,,

Rs.6500-11100 (column No.3), by virtue of acceptance of the recommendations made by the 6th Central Pay Commission were kept in the pay scale",,,,,,

of Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4700/- (column No.4) as a result of GO No.234 dated 01.06.2009, while the next promotional level i.e. of the",,,,,,

Assistant Executive Engineers was kept at Rs.15600-39100 with grade pay of Rs.5400/-. The recommendations of the One Man Commission resulted,,,,,,

in upward revision to the extent of Rs.15600-39100 with grade pay of Rs.5400/- (column No.5) for the Assistanct Engineers. The recommendations of,,,,,,

the PGRC resulted in refixation for Assistant Engineers in the scale of Rs.9300-34800 with marginal increase of grade pay to Rs.5100/- (column,,,,,,

No.7) as against what was available pursuant to GO No.234 dated 01.06.2009.,,,,,,

The recommendations of the PGRC dealt with the effects of the acceptance of the recommendations by the One Man Commission. Para 3 of the,,,,,,

recommendations quoted hereinabove shows that certain aspects of the matter were found to be anomalous. The submissions advanced by the,,,,,,

learned Advocate General also show how the difference between the Assistant Engineers and the post immediately lower than that was getting,,,,,,

widened, while at the same time, the post of Assistant Engineer and the next level of promotion i.e. the post of Assistant Executive Engineer were",,,,,,

brought almost at the same level. These anomalies found by the State Government, had to be addressed. If the State Government, therefore,",,,,,,

constituted the PGRC, such decision by itself cannot be found to be illegal or invalid.",,,,,,

It has always been accepted by this Court that prescription of pay-scales and the assessment in that behalf is a complex matter which requires,,,,,,

expertise. For instance, in Dy. Director General of Geological Survey of India and another v. R. Yadaiah and others (2001) 10 SCC 563 it was",,,,,,

observed:,,,,,,

“Ordinarily, the courts or tribunal should not go into the question of fitment of the officers in a particular group or the pay scales thereof, and leave",,,,,,

the matter to the discretion and expertise of the special commission like the Pay Commission.â€​,,,,,,

In State of Bihar and others v. Bihar Veterinary Association and others (2008) 11 SCC 60 it was observed :-,,,,,,

“13. If the courts start disturbing the recommendations of the pay scale in a particular class of service then it is likely to have cascading effect on,,,,,,

all related services which may result into multifarious litigation. The Fitment Committee has undertaken the exercise and recommended the wholesale,,,,,,

revision of the pay scale in the State of Bihar and if one class of service is to be picked up and granted higher pay scale as is available in the Central,,,,,,

Government then the whole balance will be disturbed and other services are likely to be affected and it will result in complex situation in the State and,,,,,,

may lead to ruination of the finances of the State. …..â€​,,,,,,

In Hukumchand Gupta v. ICAR (2012) 12 SCC 666 it was stated :-,,,,,,

“20. … Prescription of pay scales on particular posts is a very complex exercise. It requires assessment of the nature and quality of the duties,,,,,,

performed and the responsibilities shouldered by the incumbents on different posts. Even though, the two posts may be referred to by the same name,",,,,,,

it would not lead to the necessary inference that the posts are identical in every manner. These are matters to be assessed by expert bodies like the,,,,,,

employer or the Pay Commission. … …â€​,,,,,,

It may be stated here that the 6th Central Pay Commission comprising of experts in the field had recommended certain pay-scales for various,,,,,,

posts. The Official Committee which comprised of Principal Secretary to the State of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, as Chairperson with (i)",,,,,,

Principal Secretary, Finance Department; (ii) Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department; and (iii)Principal Secretary,",,,,,,

School Education Department as Members, had examined the matter and made certain recommendations which were accepted by the Government by",,,,,,

GO No.234 dated 01.06.2009. The One Man Commission appointed to consider the anomalies, however, recommended something which was far in",,,,,,

excess of what was accepted by GO No.234 dated 01.06.2009 which in turn was in tune with the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay,,,,,,

Commission. It is true that the Government had accepted the recommendations of the One Man Commission but if further anomalies were found,,,,,,

which called for action on part of the Government, any exercise to reconsider the matter by the State Government could not be faulted nor could the",,,,,,

constitution of the PGRC be said to be invalid or illegal.,,,,,,

Further, if there was any infirmity in the exercise of power by the PGRC in not granting adequate notice and hearing to the concerned, such",,,,,,

infirmity could certainly be sorted out. That is exactly what the Division Bench undertook while passing the directions quoted hereinabove. We,",,,,,,

therefore, see no error in the approach of and the directions issued by the Division Bench of the High Court.",,,,,,

But, it has been more than five years since the directions were issued by the Division Bench of the High Court and as a result of the interim orders",,,,,,

passed by this Court, the PGRC could not be set up. In the circumstances, certain modifications in the directions issued by the Division Bench in para",,,,,,

5 of its order are called for and we proceed to direct:-,,,,,,

(A) Direction No.(i) as issued by the Division Bench is reiterated except that Mr. Justice A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy having now expressed his,,,,,,

unwillingness, Mr. Justice D. Murugesan, formerly Chief Justice, High Court of Delhi is appointed as Chairman of the Pay Grievance Redressal",,,,,,

Committee.,,,,,,

(B) Direction No.(ii) as issued by the Division Bench is accepted and it is added that the Chairman of the PGRC will be at liberty to co-opt any two,,,,,,

experts as he deems appropriate as members of the PGRC, who shall be paid such honorarium by the State Government, as the Chairman deems",,,,,,

appropriate.,,,,,,

(C) Direction Nos.(iii) and (v) to (vii) issued by the Division Bench are accepted and do not call for any change.,,,,,,

(D) Instead of Rs.1.5 lakhs per month, we fix the honorarium of the Chairman of the PGRC at Rs.3.5 lakhs per month but the other parts of Direction",,,,,,

No.(viii) are maintained.,,,,,,

(E) Direction No.(ix) issued by the Division Bench is accepted and does not call for any change.,,,,,,

(F) It is further directed:-,,,,,,

a) Within a week from today, the State Government shall issue appropriate orders constituting the PGRC as stated above.",,,,,,

b) Within a week thereafter, the State Government shall make appropriate and adequate arrangements and provide office space befitting the status of",,,,,,

the Chairperson and other Members and also provide adequate staff, secretarial assistance and other facilities.",,,,,,

c) Within two weeks of the constitution of the PGRC all the concerned individuals/associations shall file their representations. No representation filed,,,,,,

beyond the period of two weeks shall ordinarily be accepted by the PGRC.,,,,,,

d) Direction No. (iv) issued by the Division Bench shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent.,,,,,,

e) These directions are in addition to and in further elaboration of direction No. (vii) issued by the Division Bench.,,,,,,

It is clarified that regardless of the decision to be taken by the PGRC, any amount paid by way of financial benefit extended to and enjoyed by the",,,,,,

concerned employees shall not be recovered i.e. to say that in case the decision in pursuance of the recommendations of the PGRC results in,,,,,,

reduction in pay-scales or emoluments as were granted pursuant to GOs dated 26.08.2010, such reduction shall be prospective in application from the",,,,,,

day the recommendations of the PGRC come into effect.,,,,,,

It must be stated that the recommendations of the 7th Central Pay Commission have since been made and the issue regarding implementation of,,,,,,

such recommendations is presently under active consideration. The present matters which pertain to the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay,,,,,,

Commission therefore need to be resolved at the earliest. In the circumstances, we request the PGRC to conclude the entire exercise within four",,,,,,

months from today.,,,,,,

By way of clarification, it is added that the affected categories shall not be permitted to migrate to 7th Central Pay Commission scales on the basis of",,,,,,

the higher scales till such time as the final decision is taken.,,,,,,

Lastly, it is clarified that the observations in the present order have been made purely from the stand point of consideration whether the decision of",,,,,,

the State Government in constituting the PGRC was correct or not and not by way of reflection on merits of the matter. The matter shall be,,,,,,

considered by the PGRC and the State Government purely on merits and uninfluenced by any of the observations made by us.,,,,,,

With the aforesaid directions these appeals are disposed of without any order as to costs.,,,,,,