w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



The Management of State Express Transport Corporation (Tamilnadu) Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Chennai v/s M. Jeganathan & Another

    W.A(MD) Nos. 174 & 175 of 2022 & C.M.P (MD) Nos. 1711 & 1715 of 2022

    Decided On, 02 March 2022

    At, Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

    For the Appellant: S. Baskaran, Advocate. For the Respondents: S. Arunachalam, Advocate.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 19.12.2017 made in W.P.(MD) No. 5963 & 5964 of 2010.)

Common Judgment

Paresh Upadhyay, J.

1. Challenge in these appeals is made to the order dated 19.12.2017 recorded on W.P.(MD) Nos. 5963 & 5964 of 2010. These appeals are by the respondent/ employer.

2. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that, the writ petitioner / employee was not entitled to stepping-up of pay because of consequence of revision of pay as per standing instructions of the Corporation and therefore the said stepping up of pay ought not to have been granted. It is submitted that learned Single Judge was in error in granting relief to the petitioners. It is submitted that these appeals be entertained.

3. On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondents / original writ petitioners has submitted that the persons junior to the writ petitioners were getting the pay as per their entitlement vis-a-vis their juniors however only after the revision of pay, anomaly cropped up and the juniors were getting more pay than the petitioners, which was required to be rectified by stepping-up of pay, which was asked for, which the Corporation denied inter alia on the ground of financial difficulties. Attention of this Court is invited to the contents of the counter filed on behalf of the management in this regard. It is submitted that could not be a ground to grant stepping-up of pay. It is submitted that the relief granted by learned Single Judge is just and proper and no interference be made by this Court. It is submitted that these appeals be dismissed.

4. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the material on record this Court finds as under:-

4.1 The dispute raised by the petitioners was that the persons junior to them started getting higher pay, after the revision of pay. This according to us, was the pay anomaly to be taken care of by the employer, by stepping-up of pay of the petitioners vis-a-vis their juniors. The denial by the Management to do so was illegal and on being challenged, the relief granted by learned Single Judge can not be said to be any error, which may call for any interference in these appeals. These appeals therefore need to be dismissed.

4.2 We are informed that contempt proceedings are already initiated by the writ petitioners, since the impugned order is of the year 2017. The dismissal of these appeals today, which is the first day of listing, wi

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ll not be a ground available to the appellant / Management to justify non-compliance of the order for all these years. 5. For the above reasons and with above clarification, these appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions would not survive.
O R