AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The petitioner was initially appointed as Typist in the Prison Department with effect from 21.06.1976.
Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Assistant with effect from 14.09.1983. Thereafter, he was promoted by way of transfer to the post
of Welfare Officer with effect from 17.06.1994, when he was a Selection Grade Assistant.
When he was posted as Welfare Officer in the year 1994, the scale of pay for Office Superintendents, Office Managers and Welfare Officers in
the Prison Department was Rs. 1600-2660 as prescribed in the recommendations of the V Pay Commission.
When the pay was revised pursuant to G.O.162, Finance (PC) Department, dated 13.04.1998, implementing the recommendations of VI Pay
Commission, the pay was revised to all the aforesaid three categories from Rs. 1600 -2660 to Rs. 5300-150-8300 with effect from 01.01.1996.
However, the Superintendents numbering thousands in all over Tamil Nadu, demanded the Tamil Nadu Government that they were not satisfied
with the prescription of scale of pay at Rs. 5300-8000 for the post of Superintendent. The Tamil Nadu Government constituted an one man
Commission and based on the recommendations of the one man commission, in G.O.Ms. No. 428, Finance (PC) Department, dated 28.08.1998,
revised the pay of Office Superintendent from 5300-150-8300 to 5500-175-9000. In view of this revision, the Office Superintendent in the Prison
Department got benefited. Since the post of Office Superintendent and Office Manager are interchangeable, the Office Manager also got benefited
by the G.O.Ms. No. 428, Finance (PC) Department, dated 28.08.1998. Hence, there was a disparity between the scale of pay of the Welfare
Officers on the one hand, the scale of pay of Office Superintendents and Office Managers on the other hand.
The petitioner made a representation to the Inspector General of Prisons, who is the Head of the Department, requesting to set right the
anomaly and to bring the scale of pay of Welfare Officers on par with the Office Superintendents and Office Managers in Prison Department. The
Inspector General of Prisons wrote a detailed letter in Letter No. 52705/ABL/1998, dated 08.10.1998 to the respondent recommending that the
scale of Welfare Officers has to be revised on par with Office Superintendents at Rs. 5500-9000. The Inspector General of Prisons also stated
that there are only ten posts of Welfare Officers in the Prison Department, thereby, it would not cause much cost for the exchequers. However, as
usual, there is inaction on the part of the Government.
This forced the petitioner to file the Original Application in O.A. No. 865 of 2001 praying for a direction to the respondent to consider and pass
orders on his representation claiming the pay of Superintendent. The Tribunal passed an order dated 15.02.2001, directing the petitioner to make
a representation along with the copy of the order to the respondent, within thirty days and on receipt of the said representation, the respondent was
directed to consider the same and pass orders on merit, within a period of five months.
Thereafter, the respondent passed the impugned order dated 31.08.2001, rejecting the claim of the petitioner, claiming the scale of Rs. 5500-
9000 as paid to Superintendents to the Welfare Officers. The petitioner filed O.A. No. 387 of 2002 (W.P. No. 9456 of 2007) to quash the
aforesaid order of the respondent, dated 31.08.2001 and for consequential direction to fix the pay scale of the Welfare Officers on par with the
Office Managers and Superintendents in the Ministerial Service of the Prison Department, with all monetary and attendant benefits.
On abolition of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the Original Application was transferred to this Court and numbered as W.P. No. 9456
of 2007.
Heard Mr. Veera Kathiravan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. C.K. Vishnu Priya, the learned Additional Government Pleader
for the respondent.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of the respondent is a cryptic one, without containing any reason. In
fact, the order is as follows:
It is considered that there are no valid reasons to entertain your petition for revising the scales of pay of the post of Welfare Officer in Prison
Department on par with the pay scale applicable to the post of Office Manager/Superintendent. Your request contained in your letter dated
19.06.1999 is therefore rejected.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order was passed by non-application of mind to the issues raised by the
petitioner and therefore, it has to be set aside.
The learned Counsel further contends that the Inspector General of Prisons wrote a detailed letter in his Proceedings No. 52705/AB1/98,
dated 08.10.1998, recommending that the Welfare Officers shall be paid the scale of Office Superintendent. Paragraph 4 of the said
recommendations is extracted here under.
Since, Welfare Officer and social case work Experts are called as Correctional Officers in Prison Department, their duties are more responsible
by comparing with others. Further, the sanctioned strength of these posts in this department are 10 and 3 respectively. Their duties are enumerated
in the Rule 116 and 117 of the Tamil Nadu Prison, Manual Value-II considering their nature of duties. I suggest that the scale of pay of the said
posts may also be revised atleast equal to the scale of pay of the post of Office Superintendent is Rs. 5500-9000. I therefore request Government
consider the proposal and orders may be obtained duly revising the scale of pay of the post of Welfare Officer and Social Case Work Experts as
Rs. 5500-9000 and communicated to this office early.
But the respondent does not even refer to the recommendation of the Head of the Department.
The learned Counsel further submits that even in the reply filed by the respondent it is stated that the source of appointment for the post of
Welfare Officer as per Rule-2 under Branch V of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Jail Subordinate Service, is by recruitment by transfer from
among the Office Superintendents/Office Managers in the Prison Department. When no persons are available under this category, recruitment by
transfer from Selection Grade Assistant in the Prison Department to Welfare Officer, has to be resorted to. The learned Counsel further submits
that if higher scale prescribed for the post of Office Superintendent/Office Manager is not extended to Welfare Officer, no Office
Superintendent/Office Manager would express his willingness to serve as a Welfare Officer, and the very purpose of the recruitment by transfer
from this category would get defeated. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Welfare Officers in the Prison Department are called
Correctional Officers and they are only very limited in number and therefore, by granting the scale of Office Superintendent, no much stakes is
involved for the respondent.
On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate seeks to sustain the impugned order relying on the reply affidavit filed by the respondent
and submits that the Government is empowered to decide on the question of scale of pay and the petitioner is not entitled to demand the scale of
pay of Office Superintendent, as a matter of right.
I have considered the submissions of either side. The impugned order of the respondent is a cryptic one. No reason is given for rejecting the
claim of the petitioner. When the petitioner has come with the specific case that the scale of pay of Office Superintendents and Welfare Officers
was the same in the V pay Commission recommendations as well as the VI Pay Commission recommendations, the same was altered only by way
of the recommendation of the One Man Commission, the respondent failed to consider the same. The respondent also failed to consider the
recommendations of the Inspector General of Prisons referred to above. He strongly recommended for revision of scale of Welfare Officers on par
with Office Superintendents. In fact, the Inspector General of Prisons states that the duties of the Welfare Officers are more responsible comparing
with others. Further, the Inspector General of Prisons states that the Welfare Officers are called as Correctional Officers in the Prison Department
and there are only ten persons working as Welfare Officers in the Prison Department. None of these factors are considered by the respondent
while passing the impugned order.
Further more, importantly, when the service rules provide for appointment of the Welfare Officers by recruitment, by transfer from Office
Superintendent/Office Managers, then there should be parity of the scale between these posts. In fact, the parity was maintained all along until it
was set at naught by G.O.Ms. No. 428, Finance (PC) Department, dated 28.08.1998, prescribing Rs. 5500-9000 scale for Office
Superintendent. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner for parity with Office Superintendent based on the service rules cannot simply be brushed
aside by the respondent. Unfortunately, the respondent did not consider these aspects at all.
Further, when Rs. 5500-9000 scale was prescribed for Office Superintendent, it was for the category of Office Superintendent in the entire
Tamil Nadu and obviously, there are thousands of Office Superintendents in the Government Service. While the respondent yielded to the pressure
of the Office Superintendent to raise the pay scale from Rs. 5300-8500 to Rs. 5500-9000, the respondent should have considered the claim of the
Welfare Officers, who are just ten in number. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the recommendations of Inspector General of
Prisons in this regard. The Inspector General of Prisons states that since there are only ten Welfare Officers, it will not involve high stake for the
Government.
Normally in these matters, where the scale of pay of different categories are involved, this Court could not interfere in those matters, leaving to
experts of the field to decide the issue. However, here is a case, where the claim of the petitioner is based on the service rules supported by the
Head of the Department, while the impugned order is passed without application of mind to the relevant facts of the issue, I am left with no other
option except to quash the impugned order. Hence, the impugned order is quashed and the respondent is directed to consider the claim of the
petitioner for parity in scale with Office Superintendent/Office Managers and to pass an order, within a period of six months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.