TAMIL NADU RURAL DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS AND ASSISTANT ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION versus GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS

Citation: [2019] 14 S.C.R. 1011 · Decided: 28-11-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1011
    TAMIL NADU RURAL DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS AND
ASSISTANT ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION
v.
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No.10029 of 2017)
NOVEMBER 28, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Service Law:
Pay – Constitution of Pay Grievance Cell – For removal of
anomalies  in the pay scale of employees in question – Pursuant to
recommendations regarding pay-scale of State Government
employees in consonance with recommendations made by Central
6th Pay Commission – Initially one man Commission was appointed
to remove anomaly in the pay-scale of Public Works Department
employees – After accepting the recommendations of One Man
Commission, the State later downgraded 52 categories of posts in
various Departments to lower pay-scale – Representation by
aggrieved employees – State constituted Pay Grievance Redressal
Cell (PGRC) for looking into the grievances and consider
representation – Writ Petitions – Dismissed by Single Judge of High
Court directing the State to reconstitute the PGRC  – Writ Appeal  –
During pendency of Writ Appeal, PGRC constituted, it considered
several representations and gave its recommendations, which were
implemented by the State by G.O. No. 242 dated 22.7.2013  –  G.O.
No. 242 was also challenged in Writ Petition   –  Disposing of the
writ petitions and writ appeals, Division Bench of High Court held
that reduction in pay-scale was without following principle of
natural justice hence directed the State to constitute a ‘Pay
Grievance Redressal Committee’ to analyse and consider the case
–  Appeal by the employees as well as the State to Supreme Court –
Held: Recommendations of the One Man Commission were found
to be anomalous –  If the State government constituted the PGRC to
address those anomalies, such decision by itself cannot be found to
be illegal or invalid – Prescription of pay-scale and assessment in
that behalf being a complex matter need to be assessed by experts
 [2019] 14 S.C.R. 1011
       1011
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1012
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
– Therefore, there is no error in the impugned order directing
constitution of PGRC.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. GO No. 242 dated 22.7.2013 indicates very clearly
that the Assistant Engineers who were in the pre-revised pay
scale of Rs.6500-11100 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/
- 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/- for the Assistanct Engineers.  The recommendations
of the Pay Greivance Redressal Cell resulted in refixation for
Assistant Engineers in the scale of Rs.9300-34800 with marginal
increase of grade pay to Rs.5100/- as against what was available
pursuant to GO No.234 dated 01.06.2009.  [Para 13] [1025-B-D]
 2. The recommendations of the PGRC dealt with the effects
of the acceptance of the recommendations by the One Man
Commission.  The recommendations shows that certain aspects
of the matter were found to be anomalous. 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.
[Para 14] [1025-E-F]
3. Prescription of pay-scales and the assessment in that
behalf is a complex matter which requires expertise.  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,
Home Department, as Chairperson with (i) Principal Secretary,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1013
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 On

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.