AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Jyothimani, J.—Writ Petition No. 10120 of 2002, is filed by the Workmen of Tamil Nadu Housing Board (Cellular Concrete Plant)
represented by Thakkaikal Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam for direction against respondents 1 and 2 to grant the benefits of the skilled grade
workers whose lists are given in the typed set of papers on par with other workers similarly placed as per G.O.Ms. No. 532 dated 01.06.1995
and also extend the benefit of pension to the workers of the second respondent Tamil Nadu Housing Board.
Writ Petition No. 21886 of 2003 is filed by an individual person challenging the orders of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board dated 13.06.2003,
under which the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has stated that the workers of the defunct Cellular Concrete Plant (C.C.P.) are only eligible for
gratuity and not eligible for pension.
The relief claimed in both the writ petitions are similar, and therefore, they are taken up together for final disposal.
According to the petitioners in W.P. No. 10120 of 2002, the workers of Cellular Concrete Plant (hereinafter referred to as C.C.P.) are forming
part of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and the said C.C.P. was created by the Housing Board to work at Ennore and a wood work unit at K.K.
Nagar. On 20.12.1969, the Housing Board has decided to extend all the benefits to its workers, which the workers of Ennore Thermal Power
Station are getting as forming part of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The C.C.P. was established in the year 1971. Employees with ITI and non
ITI qualifications were recruited either as skilled or semi-skilled workers. The second respondent has revised the pay scale of skilled and semi-
skilled workers on 16.06.1982, notionally with effect from 12.12.1972 and with monetary benefits from 01.04.1982.
4(a). Between 1971 and 1973, there was a recruitment by the Housing Board as NMR''s and they were brought into the Non Provintialised work
charged establishment. By an order dated 11.11.1974, all the NMR''s, who have completed 240 days in 12 calendar months were regularised and
thereafter, they were designated as skilled or semi-skilled workers, put in the minimum time scale of pay. Based on the direction given by this
Court in a writ petition, the second respondent Housing Board has decided to place all the employees in semi-skilled grade and placed them in the
pay scale of Rs. 200-5-250-10-300 with effect from 01.11.1974 and with monetary benefit from 01.04.1982. Likewise, in respect of skilled
workers recruited in 1971, they were placed in the scale of Rs. 250-10-400.
4(b). On 01.06.1995, the Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 532, giving benefit of the skilled grade pay scale to 24 workers, who were designated
as semi-skilled and they were represented by the Union of the then Ruling party. The petitioner Sangam has also made a similar demand on
09.07.1996 and 06.04.1998, to confer the benefit of the said Government Order to its members. The Ministry of Housing has decided to
constitute a Committee consisting of various officials of the Board and the President of the petitioner Sangam, to consider the grant of pension
applicable to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and giving the benefit of skilled pay scale to the employees who were designated as skilled or semi-
skilled, but paid only semi-skilled pay.
4(c). Between 1976 and 1985, about 35% of the C.C.P. workers were transferred to second respondent Board and they were alone given the
benefit of pension, which was enjoyed by the employees of the Board. The other C.C.P. workers were not given pension, even after the said
Government Order dated 20.06.1986, sanctioning the pensionary benefits to Ennore Thermal Power Station workers of the Tamil Nadu Electricity
Board. The pensionary benefits which are conferred to the employees of the second respondent Board has been denied to the C.C.P. workers,
even though they are forming part of the second respondent Board. It is also stated that the second respondent has got a wood work unit at K.K.
Nagar and pensionary benefits were extended to them also.
4(d). In 1990, the operations of the C.C.P. is suspended and all the workers were transferred and posted to second respondent Unit and they
continue to discharge their work in Tamil Nadu Housing Board since then. The petitioner Sangam has made further representation on 06.04.1998,
for payment of pension as per G.O.Ms.No.532 dated 01.06.1995. It is the case of the petitioners that the Board has been inclined to give pension
to the other employees of the Housing Board provided the Provident Fund Commissioner was willing to give exemption under the Provident Fund
Act to those employees.
4(e). On 05.12.1998, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the second respondent Board wrote a letter to the Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner and in fact the Commissioner in his letter dated 21.03.1991, has informed that he would consider exemption from the Provident
Fund Act, provided the Board extends the pensionary and other benefits to the employees of the C.C.P. on par with the employees of the Housing
Board. As far as the family pension fund is concerned, the accounts will be settled to the individual employees. The complaint of the petitioner is
that the benefit given to the skilled grade scale has not been given to the employees under the unskilled category while the unskilled workers who
were given in the list as per the Government Order in G.O.Ms. No. 532 dated 01.06.1995 numbering 24 were given benefit and therefore, it
would amount to arbitrary discrimination. The Government has given the benefit of skilled grade scale whether a person has been designated as a
semi-skilled or skilled, since they, are doing the same work as per the said Government Order. In view of the above said fact the writ petition
came to be filed.
In W.P. No. 21886 of 2003, the petitioner has entered the service as a Assistant Chemist in the scale of pay of Rs. 250-10-400 in the C.C.P.
at Ennore, Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 03.01.1972 pursuant to the order of appointment issued by the Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Housing
Board. Thereafter, he was promoted as Chemist in the C.C.P. Division in the scale of Rs. 600-30-750-35-890-40-1050 and by the proceedings
of the Chairman of the Board dated 22.12.1981, he was treated as a Staff. Member of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. It is also the case of the
petitioner that on 01.12.1993, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has regularised the services of the petitioner in C.C.P. as Chemist with effect from
02.08.1979. The petitioner was brought under Selection Grade Chemist on 14.12.1993 and he was given a Special Grade on completion of 20
years on 18.11.1999. By the proceedings dated 22.04.2000, the C.C.P. Division was transferred as Sub-Division and merged with South Asian
Federation Games Village Circle and the employees therein were absorbed. Accordingly, the petitioner was transferred to that post as Chemist in
the Quality Control in the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Secretariat.
5(a). On 25.06.2002, the petitioner was permitted to retire from service of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board with effect from 30.06.2002 and he
was entitled for the pension under the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board Pension Regulations, 1977, under which all the pension rules applicable to
the Government servants of Tamil Nadu are made applicable to the- Board employees and the petitioner has put in the regular service of 30 years
and six months. Since the petitioner has not received any pension order, he has moved this Court by filing W.P.No.9076 of 2003 and by order
dated 25.03.2003, this Court has directed the Housing Board to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass orders. Pursuant to that the
impugned order came to be passed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board stating that the employees/workers of defunct C.C.P. are eligible for
gratuity alone Tand they are not eligible for pension and therefore, pension could not be sanctioned. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ
petition.
The Tamil Nadu Housing Board has filed counter affidavit. According to the Board, some of the employees were recruited by the C.C.P.
Project Officer by way of advertisement issued during November, 1971 and skilled and semi-skilled workers were appointed based on their
educational and technical qualifications with previous experience. Based on that the scale of pay for the post of Fitter, Turner, Welder, Machinist,
Mechanic, Electrician, Smith, Carpenter, Forklifts and Boiler Operators etc. who were in the semi-skilled category was fixed at Rs. 150-4-170-5-
The Board has revised the pay of the regular semi-skilled employees as Rs. 250-10-400 with effect from 12.12.1972 and with monetary
benefit from 01.04.1982. According to the Housing Board, the said revised pay is eligible to be paid to the semi-skilled workers, who are qualified
and according to the Board, the petitioners are from different category than the regular category.
6(a). It is specifically admitted in the counter affidavit that on the representation of another Thozhilalar Sangam, Government has issued
G.O.Ms.No.532 dated 01.06.1995, for revision of scale of pay in respect of 24 regular semi-skilled employees, who have joined during the year
1972 on par with skilled employees of C.C.P. with effect from their date of appointment on conferring monetary benefits from 01.04.1982. It is
also further admitted by the Housing Board in the counter affidavit that in accordance with the above G.O.Ms. No. 532 dated 01.06.1995, the
Housing Board has issued an order in Proceedings No. PT-5/61812/90 dated 19.06.1995 for the revision of scale of pay to 24 regular semi-
skilled workers on par with the regular skilled workers with effect from their date of appointment, giving monetary benefit with effect from
01.04.1982.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Advocate General Mr. P.S. Raman.
Even though it is the case of the Housing Board that in respect of 24 persons, who were semi-skilled workers, they were paid scale of pay on
par with skilled workers as per the said G.O.Ms.No.532 dated 01.06.1995 and the petitioners in these writ petitions cannot be compared with
them, it is not substantiated as to how different treatment can be made when admittedly during 1971-72 the skilled and semi-skilled employees
were employed in C.C.P. The further contention as if they cannot be treated on par with the employees of the Housing Board, is not tenable.
In view of the admission in the counter affidavit by the respondent Board that relating to the similarly situated semi-skilled employees numbering
24, they were given salary on par with skilled workers, there is absolutely no justification for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to deny the same to
the similarly situated workers who have been drawn to C.C.P. It is relevant to point out that the 4th respondent, Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner in the counter affidavit has stated that the employees of the C.C.P. were absorbed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board with effect
from February 1998 and they have been allotted G.P.F. Number and therefore, it is clear that the C.C.P. employees have been the employees of
the Housing Board. In respect of Writ Petition No. 21886 of 20903, where the petitioner is a Chemist, as stated by the learned Counsel appearing
for the petitioner Mr. S. Vadivelu, in the order of retirement dated 25.06.2002, the Board has clearly stated that the petitioner therein has retired
as an employee of a Tamil Nadu Housing Board in the following terms.
Consequent on attaining the age of superannuation, Thiru K. Vairakkannu, Chemist, Board Secretariat is permitted to retire from the services of
the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 30.06.2002 afternoon Thiru K. Vairakkannu, Chemist, Quality Control of Board Secretariat is relieved of his
duties with effect from 30.06.2002 AN.
In view of the above said categorical position and also the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Salabuddin Mohammed Yunus v. State of
Andhra Pradesh 1984 (3) SLR 24, the payment of pension is not a discretion of the State, but is governed by the rules made in that behalf.
Inasmuch as it is not in dispute that the employees of Tamil Nadu Housing Board are entitled for pension as per the Tamil Nadu Housing Board
Pension Regulation Act, 1977 and Regulation No. 7 makes it clear that the pension rules applicable to the Government servants of Tamil Nadu
shall apply to the Board employees, I am of the considered view that the impugned order in the said writ petition is clearly a discrimination and
totally invalid.
It is also brought to my notice that most of the members of the petitioner Sangam in W.P. No. 10120 of 2002, have already retired and the
writ petitioner in W.P. No. 21886 of 2003 has also retired.
In view of the same, both the writ petitions are allowed with the following directions to the first and second respondents:
(i) Confer the benefits of skilled grade pay to the workers mentioned in the typed set of papers as per G.O.Ms. No. 532 dated 01.06.1995;
(ii) The impugned order in W.P.No.21886 of 2003 is quashed with direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to pay pension to the petitioner therein in
accordance with the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Pension Regulations, 1977 read with Tamil Nadu Government Servants Pension Rules; and
(iii) The respondents are directed to compute the pensionary benefits due to the petitioners as stated above and pay the same within a period of
four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Both the writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.