WA/3824/2025 of The Executive Engineer Vs T Manivannan on 29 September 2026

COMMON JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The unsuccessful petitioners in Review Application No. 59 of 2015 and Review Application No. 10 of 2025 are before this Court as the appellants.

2. Review Application No. 59 of 2015 was filed against the order dated 08.11.2013 in W.P. No. 31941 of 2004. Likewise, Review Application No. 10 of 2025 was filed against the order dated 08.11.2013 in W.P. No. 6483 of 2008.

3. The respondent filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 31941 of 2004 for a Certiorarified Mandamus challenging the Proceedings No. 2047/EA3/AIR/2004 dated 09.08.2004, and for a Mandamus to restore the pay that the petitioner was drawing prior to the issuance of the impugned order. Writ Petition No. 6483 of 2008 was filed challenging the impugned proceedings dated 04.03.2008 in EA/364/2008. Both writ petitions were allowed by a common order dated 08.11.2013. Against the said order in W.P. No. 31941 of 2004, Writ Appeal No. 1492 of 2014 was filed, and the Division Bench, vide its order dated 19.11.2014, granted liberty to the Board to withdraw the appeal with liberty to file a review application against the writ petition order. Pursuant to the said liberty, the Board filed Review Applications, which were dismissed on 02.06.2025. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Appeals have been filed.

4. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he was initially appointed as Fitter Grade-II on 01.04.1991. There were different pay scales for posts like

Fitter, Welder, Electrician, etc., in various departments. To fix these different pay scales, a One-man Committee was constituted in G.O. Ms. No. 1267, Finance (PC-I) Department, dated 08.12.1985. The One-man Committee gave its recommendations to the Government, and based on those recommendations, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 762, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 20.08.1986. As per the Government recommendations, there were two types of posts, viz., Electrician Grade-I and Electrician Grade-II. Since the petitioner passed S.S.L.C. with an I.T.I. qualification, he was designated as Fitter Grade-I, and his pay was fixed in the scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000/- with effect from 01.01.1996. The said fixation was withdrawn by the Board on the ground that the pay fixation is applicable only to Electrician Grade-I and not to Fitter Grade-II. The petitioner's pay was re-fixed under the category of Fitter Grade-II w.e.f. 01.01.1996, and recovery was also ordered. Challenging the same, the petitioner approached this Court by way of writ petitions.

5. The Board filed a counter-affidavit to the writ petition. In paragraph 5 of the counter, the Board specifically averred that Circular No. WCE1/087659/98 dated 10.06.1999 stipulated that Electricians with the qualification of S.S.L.C. pass plus an I.T.I. certificate alone were designated as Grade-I in the timescale of pay of Rs. 4000-6000/-. Fitters with the qualification of S.S.L.C. pass with an I.T.I. certificate had not been designated as Fitter Grade-II in the timescale of pay of Rs. 4000-100-6000/- under the said circular. However, the Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Trichy, allowed the timescale of pay of Rs. 4000-100-6000/- to the petitioner as Fitter Grade-II, treating him as a Grade-I Fitter as per the Board order. When the petitioner was transferred from Trichy and joined at the Alandur Division, verification of his service book revealed that his pay had been wrongly fixed. On that basis, to rectify the pay anomaly, a letter in T.O. Lr. No. 2047/EA/3/2003, dated 17.10.2003, was addressed to the Board seeking clarification. In reply to the said letter, it was clarified on 02.09.2004 that the circular dated 10.06.1999 is applicable only to electricians and not to Fitter Grade-II. Despite the pay anomaly being rectified by the Board, the Writ Court allowed the writ petition. Pursuant to the leave granted in the Writ Appeal, a review was filed, which was also dismissed.

6. The petitioner was originally a direct recruit appointed through the Employment Exchange as a Fitter in the pay scale of Rs. 950-20-1150-25- 1500. His appointment order designates him solely as a Fitter. The petitioner referred to the proceedings dated 10.07.1999, in which he was sanctioned annual increments, and his pay was re-fixed in the revised timescale of pay of Rs. 4000-100-6000/- with effect from 01.01.1996, alongside revised annual increments. In those proceedings, the fourth reference relates to Circular Letter No. WCE.1/087659/98, dated 10.06.1999, which concerns electricians working in Grade-II and is unrelated to Fitters. Unfortunately, the petitioner's name was included in the proceedings dated 10.07.1999 by mistake, even though he was not in the category of Electrician Grade-I. This mistake was subsequently noted by the Board, and through a letter dated 02.09.2004, it was clarified that the letter dated 10.06.1999 applies exclusively to electricians and not to the post of Fitter.

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

8. 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.

9. 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 Association1 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.

10. 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. 1(2002) 6 SCC 72

11. 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. Accordingly, the common order impugned dated 02.06.2025 made in Rev.Aplw No.10 of 2025 and Rev.Aplw.No.59 of 2015 is 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/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No rli/kst

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN J. rli/kst WA Nos. 3824 and 3834 of 2025 29-09-2026