LexSTATE OF TAMIL NADU versus SESHACHALAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF TAMIL NADU A r v. SESHACHALAM SEPTEMBER 18, 2007 B [S.B. SINHA AND H.S. BEDI, JJ.) Service Law: Stepping up of pay-Secretariat of Tamil Nadu Government- c Employees recruited through a common selection test under "One Unit" Scheme-Later, Departments of Finance and Law separated from the level of Superintendent (Section Officer)-Resulting in few employees in these two departments getting promotion to higher posts earlier than their seniors in other Departments recruited through "One D Unit" Scheme-GovernmentissuingG.O.Ms. No.126dated25.9.1998 ~4 stepping up pay of affected existing employees as one time measure- 0.A. filed by retired employees rejected by Tribunal, inter alia, on ground of long delay-HELD: the Government under G. 0. Ms. dated 25. 9.1998 laid down a policy for providing financial benefits to existing employees with prospective effect as a one time measure- E No arrears of pay was paid-Various pros and cons were examined- Besides, delay or /aches is a relevant factor for a court of law to determine the question as to whether claim made by applicant deserves consideration-Article 14 in such a situation would not be attracted only because a cut off date has been fixed-The same per se cannot F be said to be arbitrary-Constitution of India-Article 14-Delay/ Laches-Natural justice-Legitimate expectation. In the State of Tamil Nadu, different Departments of its Secretariat were made "one unit" in the year 1961 for the purpose G of appointment and promotion. However, later, byG.O.Ms. No.1290 dated 5.6.1970 the Finance and Law Departments were excluded from "one unit" system in that though the posts in the cadre of Assistant, Assistant Section Officer. Typists/Personal Clerks in these two Departments continued to be filled up from the common 53 H 54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 10 S.C.R. A list of candidates, further promotions were effected from amongst the employees allotted thereto. GOMs No. 3288 (Public Service Department) was issued on 29.10.1971 specifying Finance and Law Departments as separate units from the level of Superintendent (Section Officer). Two employees filed application before the Tamil B Nadu Administrative Tribunal in 1990 claiming promotion and scale of pay at par with those who were working in the Finance Department and were juniors to them but were promoted to higher posts in Finance Department. The 1application was allowed and pursuant to the directions of the Tribunal, the Government amended the relevant C service rules and issued GO Ms. No. 126 dated 25.9.1998 providing, inter alia, that pay of seniors in "one unit" recruited on or before 28.1.1994 would be stepped up on par with their juniors in Finance Department by upgradation of scale accordingly and this stepping up would be purely a person-oriented upgradation and would not entitle the employee to any daim for arrears of pay. The D respondents, who had retired much prior to issuance of the G.O. dated 29.5.1998 filed applications before the Tribunal claiming fixation of their pay at par with their juniors in Finance Department. Their applications were dismissed by the Tribunal holding, inter alia, that they should have raised the dispute long back when their juniors E had been given promotions and as the .ipplications were filed after 20 years, the same could not be entertained. However, the High Court having allowed the writ petitions of the respondents, the State Government filed the instant appeals. F Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. The employees of the Finance and Law Departments were being treated differently for a long time. The respondents never questioned the purported different treatment meted out to them by the State either by making representations or G by filing any application before the State Administrative Tribunal. H However, pursuant to the observations made by the Tribunal in an O.A. in its order dated 16.4.1993, the State amended the Rules with retrospective effect. The said Rule is still i~ force. Validity of the said Rule has not been questioned by the respondents. Different treatments meted out to the employees of the Finance and Law t--· -( / - -~ STATEOFTAMILNADUv. SESHACHALAM 55 Department vis-a-vis other departments is now covered by Rules, A but despite the same, the State intended to assuage the feelings of the employees by issuance of GOMs No. 126 dated 29.5.1998. [Para 9] (64-A-D] 1.2. Interpr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.