WA/2613/2024 of Managing Director Vs R. Balakrishnan on 29 September 2026

Judgment

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The present writ appeals are filed against the order dated 01-06-2023 made in Rev.Aplw.Nos.24 and 25/2020 in WP.Nos. 27639 and 15798 of 2010.

2. The Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (hereinafter referred to as 'TWAD Board') is the appellant. The respondents herein were appointed to the post of Rig Helper.

3. The facts in brief are that the respondent in W.A.No.2613 of 2024 was appointed as Rig Helper vide appointment order dated 05.06.1987. Likewise, the respondent in W.A.No.2670 of 2025 was appointed as Helper on 22.05.1987. Thereafter, based on the Government Orders issued in respect of revision of pay scale and re-designation of posts as Grade-I and Grade-II posts, B.P.Ms.No.505 dated 12.12.1986 was issued. Since the post in which the respondents were working was not included in the Government Orders, some of the similarly placed employees filed I.D.No.147 of 1993, wherein Award dated 07.11.1996 was passed fixing the scale of pay for certain posts. Subsequently, the Board issued separate Board Proceedings in B.P.No.547 dated 04.02.1997 re-designating the post of Helper / Rig Helper as Assistant Driller and fixed their scale of pay at Rs.950-1500/-.

4. The respondents along with two other employees of the Board filed a writ petitions in W.P.Nos.15798 and 27369 of 2010 to direct the appellants herein to implement Board Proceedings in B.P.No.505 dated 12.12.1986 and grant all the benefits. The Writ Court dismissed the writ petitions on 17.10.2012. Writ appeals came to be filed in W.A.Nos.1709 to 1712 of 2014 and the Division Bench passed an order on 01.08.2018 recording that, in respect of some of the employees wages have been fixed in this connection in proceedings dated 21.11.2012. Since the said letter was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench granted liberty to the writ petitioners to file appropriate review petitions. Thereafter, Review Application Nos.24 and 25 of 2020 were filed. The learned Single Judge allowed the Review Applications and granted the benefit of revised scale of pay. Challenging the said order, the present appeals have been filed by the Board.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the TWAD Board would submit that the claim of the respondents seeking higher scale of pay is stale and untenable on the ground that the TWAD Board issued a proceeding in BP No.505 dated 12.12.1986 pursuant to the Government Orders as per which, the employees who have passed SSLC and holding ITI certificate were given the pay scale of Rs.610 to Rs.1075 and the employees who have failed in SSLC but having ITI certificate were given the pay scale of Rs.555/- to Rs.970/- irrespective of their posts. However, the learned Single Judge failed to consider that non-inclusion of the posts of Helper / Rig Helper etc., in B.P.No.505 dated 505 dated 12.12.1986. That apart, the learned Judge also failed to consider that another Board Proceedings in B.P.No.547 dated 04.12.1997 was issued for the purpose of re-designation of the said posts as Assistant Drillers with a higher scale of pay of Rs.950-1150/-.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr.S.Muthukrishnan for Mr.M.Sridhar would oppose by stating that Union approached the Labour Court in I.D.No.147 of 1993 and an award was passed by the Labour Court, Tirunelveli on 07.11.1996. Based on the said award, the pay scale of Rs.610/- was granted to a set of employees. Therefore, the said benefit is to be extended to the respondents. He also submits that the Division Bench of Madurai Bench has passed an order in favour of similarly placed employees like that of the respondents. The Board also granted Grade I scale of pay to those employees. While so, the said benefit cannot be denied to the respondents. Thus, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions is to be confirmed and the writ appeals filed by the Board are to be rejected.

8. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions made between the parties to the lis.

9. Admittedly, the respondents were appointed on 07.10.1987 ie., after the Board Proceedings in B.P.No.505 was issued on 12.12.1986. In respect of the scale of pay of Rs.505, which has been explicitly stated in the order of appointment, the said scale of pay has not been challenged in the present case. Contrarily, a writ of mandamus came to be filed seeking higher scale of pay based on B.P.No.505. The said Board Proceedings in B.P.No.505 is all about revision of pay scales for certain categories of posts which would apply only in respect of the employees working during the year 1986. Even in that case, the order of appointment is to be verified whether an employee has been appointed in technical posts of Grade-I and Grade-II, since the qualification prescribed for technical post Grade-II is SSLC fail and Grade-I technical posts SSLC pass. Therefore, the order of appointment is to be considered for deciding the fact whether an employee is appointed in a particular scale of pay. Even in case where an SSLC pass candidate has been appointed as Grade-II, he would be eligible only to draw the salary admissible to technical post Grade II. There is no impediment to appoint a candidate who has passed SSLC in Grade II technical post. However, these are all the facts which has to be ascertained from the conditions stipulated in the appointment order. Once an order of appointment is accepted and an employee has joined as stipulated in the order of appointment, he cannot turn around and claim that he is entitled to a higher scale of pay on the ground that he passed SSLC. In the present case, B.P.No.505 was issued in the year 1986, but the respondents were appointed in the year 1987 ie., after a lapse of nearly one year.

10. Yet another ground has been raised on behalf of the respondents that some of the employees were already benefitted by virtue of either the order passed by the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench and some of those orders were already implemented by the Board and therefore these respondents need not be discriminated.

11. Regarding the erroneous implementation of certain orders of the Courts in the absence consideration of relevant facts, the same need not be considered as a precedent to continue the mistake perpetually. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of A.Sundaram -vs- State of Tamil Nadu and Others1 held as follows: “12. In the past, individual and independent court orders have been granted in few cases and the grounds of relief are based more on misplaced sympathy than on the foothold of the Rules/law in place. Consequently, such individual orders have 1 2020 MHC 2249

been followed as precedent in the consequential similarly placed cases creating a spinning wheel of precedents to choose from, thereby causing inconsistencies and diluting the actual Rules/law.”

12. It is needless to state that the Board authorities are expected to maintain consistency. However, certain errors if done unintentionally by the authorities, such mistake can be corrected and the action of the authorities may be condoned. If any errors or mistakes or irregularities are committed knowingly by the authorities, then they are liable to be proceeded against under the relevant service rules and departmental disciplinary proceedings are to be initiated.

13. Scale of pay is a complex issue and an executive function. Equation of posts of fixing of scale of pay is to be left to the expert body. The Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana -vs- Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association2 held that, granting of pay scales is purely executive function and hence the Courts should not interfere with the same. It may have cascading effect. Hence the Courts should exercise judicial restraint and not to interference in such executive functions. 2(2002) 6 SCC 72

14. The Courts in exercise of their limited power of judicial review can only examine whether the decision of the authorities is resulting in unjust and prejudicial to a particular set of employees. The Courts should interfere when such decision is unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and the Government, while taking the decision has ignored the facts which are material and relevant for the decision in the matter. Even in such cases, the Courts cannot remand the matter to reconsider the fixation or re-fixation, as the case may be by the competent authorities. The Court cannot direct the authorities to fix a particular scale of pay, which results in complications and opening up of pandora’s box, wherein several employees approach the Court based on such judicial decisions, finally resulting in huge financial burden.

15. Since the material facts relevant for deciding the correctness of the scale of pay has not been taken into consideration by the Writ Court while dealing with the writ petitions on earlier occasions, this Court is of the considered view that those decisions cannot be followed as precedents to commit further mistakes or to continue the mistakes in perpetuity. Therefore, we are inclined to interfere with the writ order impugned. Accordingly, the orders impugned dated 01-06-2023 made in Rev.Aplw.Nos.24 and 25 of2020 in WP.No.27369 and 15798 of 2010 are set aside and the writ appeals stand allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 29-09-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes KST To

1. Managing Director Tamil Nadu Water and Drainage Board, Chennai - 600 005.

2. The Executive Engineer (TWAD) Board Maintenance Division (Siruvani), Coimbatore.

3. The Executive Engineer (TWAD) Board Maintenance Division, Tamil Nadu Water and Drainage Board, Thiruvarur.

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN J. KST WA No. 2613 of 2024 AND W.A.No.2670 of 2025 29-09-2026