TAMIL NADU WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD ACCOUNTS OFFICIALS ASSOCIATION Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR TAMIL NADU WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Order of the Court was as follows : THE petitioner Association has filed this writ petition against the respondents praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to fix the scale of pay strictly in accordance with recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission as implemented by the Government, taking into consideration the provisions of G.O. 304 dated 28-3-1990 and also considering the existing scales of pay of feeder categories to the post of Divisional Accountants, Junior Accounts Officers and Accounts Officers of the first respondent/Board as follows : I. Divisional Accountants : Ordinary Grade .. Rs. 2000-3200 Selection Grade .. Rs. 2200-4000 II. Junior Accounts Officer : Ordinary Grade .. Rs. 2200-4000 Selection Grade .. Rs. 2500-4200 III. Accounts Officers : Ordinary Grade .. Rs. 3000-4500 Selection Grade .. Nil With retrospective effect from 1-6-1988 and further directing the respondents to pay arrears and emoluments calculated on the basis of the above mentioned scales of pay. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and for the respondents as well.

(2.) IN the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner Association would contend that the first respondent Tamil Nadu Water and Drainage Board (TWAD) was constituted under Tamil Nadu Act IV of 1971 with effects from 14-4-1971; that its functions inter alia relate to regulation and development of drinking water and drainage in the State of Tamil Nadu; that S. 10 of the Act enjoins the duty on the Board to prepare and maintain a schedule of Establishments showing the number, designation and rates of the Officers and servants necessary and proper to be employed in the service of the Board; that S. 30 of the Act states that every person who immediately before the notified date, is serving in connection with the affairs of the Department of Public Health Engineering and Municipal Works, including the office of the Chief Engineer under the Government shall, as and from that date, be deemed to have been allotted to serve in connection with the affairs of the Board; that it is further stated that the conditions of service applicable immediately before the notified date to any such person shall not be varied by the Board to his disadvantage except with the previous approval of the Government; that S. 73 deals with the powers of the Board to make regulations; that S. 73(2)(b) enables the Board to make regulations providing for the terms and conditions of appointment and service and the scale of pay of the Officers and servants of the Board.The further submissions of the petitioner as per the writ petition are that the Board had framed regulations called "Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board Service Regulations 1972; that Regulation 58 states that Fundamental Rules, the amended leave rules and the manual of Special Pay and Allowances and the Pension Code as granted from time to time shall mutatis mutandis apply to the members of the Board service in the matter of their pay, allowances, dearness leave salary and other conditions of service.

(3.) THE first respondent would further submit in his counter that the above two scales allowed to Divisional Accountant and Junior Accounts Officers annulled the earlier decision of the Board that both these posts are merged; that subsequently the Government clarified certain points in its letter dated 29-6-93 and 15-12-1993; that the pay for the Divisional Accountant may be notionally fixed with effects from 1-6-88 and the monetary benefits be given and no arrears of pay and allowances need be paid; that from the above, it is seen that the TWAD Board Accounts Officials Association by their protracted representation got revised scales of pay which is beneficial to them by separating, merging and again separating both the above posts and comparing the scales to other departments are not acceptable; however the proposal already approved to merge and fix the pay for these posts at Rs. 2000-3200 w.e.f. 1-6-88 notionally and to give monetary benefit from 15-12-93 and that no arrears to Divisional Accountants has to be given effect to, in view of Government instructions; that this subject having been considered by the Board was referred to the Government which in their letter dated 19-8-1993 stated that both these posts should not be separated again and informed the Board to amend the regulations suitably; that the orders of the Government issued on 29-6-1993 r/w the order dated 19-8-93 and letter dated 15-12-93 were placed before the Board for adoption and the Board in its resolution No. 27 dated 26-11-96 resolved to adopt the same and passed orders in D.P. Ms. No. 390 dated 6-12-1996; that the TWAD Board followed the scales of pay applicable to the Divisional Accountants of Highways and Rural Works Department in the TWAD Board also, adopting the revised scale as per the recommendations of the V. Pay Commission; that the post of Junior Accounts Officer is a promotional post and the scale of pay was fixed at Rs. 2000-3200 and therefore the act of fixing the scale of pay for the post of Divisional Accountants and Junior Accounts Officer as per the order of the Government is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory.THE first respondent would further submit that the posts of Assistants, Assistant Section Officer and Superintendents are not feeder category posts for the post of Divisional Accountant; that the post of Divisional Accountant is filled up by persons with prescribed years of experience and who have passed the competitive Divisional Accountant Examination conducted by the Accountant General; that the post of Administrative Officer is filled up by promotion from the category of Superintendent; that their pay is fixed as per rule and the corresponding scale of pay in the Section Grade posts are allowed to them; that the duties and responsibilities of Administrative Officer cannot be compared equivalent to that of Divisional Accountant as it belongs to a different service; that the post of Divisional Accountant is not a promotional post to the post of Assistant Section Officer, whose qualification is a degree, besides passing the Divisional Accountant test conducted by the Accountant General; that the post of Section Officer is filled up by Assistant Section Officers by preparing a panel and duly considering the seniority, etc. and no competitive examination is being held for this; that the Board follows the scale of pay intended to the office of the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department in respect of technical and ministerial staff and for such of the posts not prevailing in those Offices, the scale of pay adopted in Highways and Rural Works Department is followed; that for Junior Accounts Officers in TWAD Board, their scale of pay is adopted as per the Government Order; that the Accounts Wing in TWAD Board is stated to be equivalent to the Accounts Wing of Accountant General and not that of the Accounts Wing in Highways and Rural Works Department; that the TWAD Board Service Regulations, TWAD Board Officers and Servants Conduct Regulations and TWAD Board (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations will not apply to fixing of pay of employees of the Board; and according to Regulation 58 of the TWAD Board Service Regulations in respect of pay and allowances, the same that is allowed to the Government Servants shall be followed; that as per S. 7 of the TWAD Board Act, the Board has power to increase or decrease the pay of employees of the Board with the concurrence of the Government; that the method of appointment adopted for Thiru A. V. Raman is different, since he got appointment by direct recruitment on advertisement, wherein the qualification prescribed was A.C.A., on account of which he was given a special scale of pay; that one post of Accounts Officer was upgraded as that of Deputy Chief Accounts Officer and in view of the higher scale of pay since allowed, he was accommodated in the said post strictly in adherence to the Rules; and on such and other averments, the first respondent would ultimately pray for dismissing the writ petition as devoid of merit.THE averments contained in the counter-affidavit submitted on behalf of the second respondent, are almost same or similar to that of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent and hence it will be only a waste of time to repeat what has already been traced from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent.