P.Jyothimani, J. - (1.) HEARD the Special learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and Mr. Chandrasekaran for the respondents.
(2.) THIS writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 01.07.2008 passed in W.P. No. 28492/2006, which was transferred and renumbered from Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, wherein it was filed as O.A. No. 2729/1997. The learned Single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition on the basis that the issue has been covered in respect of similarly situated persons, by the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 4858/1992 etc. dated 05.11.1993 and applying the same, the relief has been directed to be given to the respondents. The respondents in the original application filed before the Tribunal have asked for a direction against the present appellants to grant selection grade in the post of Junior Inspectors with effect from 25.09.1989 and 24.09.1989 respectively taking their total service from their initial dates of appointment as Sericulture Demonstrators which was earlier called as Sericulture Operatives. The main ground on which the writ appeal has been filed challenging the order of the learned Judge is that the applicants in the original application before the Tribunal to whom relief has been given in order dated 05.11.1993 are different from the present respondents. While it is the case of the learned Special Government Pleader that those applicants before the Tribunal were appointed in the year 1961, the present respondents were appointed in the year 1979 and therefore, for the grant of Selection Grade, the date of joining original service has to be taken into consideration and therefore, according to the learned Special Government Pleader, the learned Judge ought not to have extended the benefit of the order given by the Tribunal dated 05.11.1993. On the other hand, Mr. Chandrasekaran, learned Counsel for the respondents would submit that what was decided by the Tribunal earlier in batch of cases was not relating to the date of entry into service but the merger of the posts viz., Sericulture Operatives that of the Sericulture Demonstrators and that of Sericulture Demonstrators to that of the Junior Inspectors. It was taking note of the said merger into consideration the Tribunal has passed final orders. The Tribunal has held that merger is in effect re-designation and not promotion. In that view of the matter, direction was given to the appellants herein to take the original date of joining duty as Sericulture Operative for the purpose of conferring Selection Grade in the post of Sericulture Demonstrators which was subsequently merged as Junior Inspectors of Sericulture. The order of the Tribunal in the batch of cases dated 05.11.1993 makes it very clear, which is as follows :- "The post of Sericulture Demonstrators was in the scale Rs. 265-425 or 280-450 in the ordinary grade, in the selection grade Rs. 310-500. The posts were merged with the higher category of Junior Inspector of Sericulture on the scale Rs. 325-550 in the ordinary grade and 400-700 in the Selection Grade with effect from 01.10.1984. The revised scales for the post of Junior Inspector of Sericulture are 610-1075, Ordinary grade and 705-1230 Selection Grade according to G.O. Ms. No. 694, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 11.08.1986. On the basis that consequent on merger of the lower post of Sericulture Demonstrators with the higher category of Junior Inspector of Sericulture which was earlier the promotion post for the Sericulture Demonstrators, the 5 Sericulture Demonstrators should be deemed to be appointed to a higher post, pay is sought to be refixed in the ordinary grade of the higher post even though they were eligible for selection grade with reference to the period of service as Sericulture Demonstrators. The presumption that on merger of two categories, if one category was lower and the merger was with higher category constituting promotion avenue earlier is in fact promotion and on that basic pay should be fixed as if on promotion is not correct. The merger has that effect of upgrading the lower post to the higher category and the scale of pay becomes same. Therefore, but for the merger and Sericulture Demonstrator would be eligible for selection grade with reference to his service as such and the pay scale applicable would be the common scale now applicable to the Junior Inspector of Sericulture in which category the Sericulture Demonstrators has been merged. The merger therefore, is in effect re-designation and not a promotion. The benefit of service as Sericulture Demonstrator can not be denied for fixation of pay in selection and special grades, if only for the reason that but for the re-designation consequent on the merger, the Sericulture Demonstrators would be eligible to count their entire service for purpose of selection and special grades in new scale for the post which is the same as that of Junior Inspector of Sericulture".
(3.) ON a reading of the said order, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the averments in the above said batch of cases are distinct from that of the respondents' case. The only difference is that the applicants therein have joined service in the year 1961 while the present respondents have joined in the year 1979. But the post remains the same. The respondents have joined as temporary Sericulture Operatives which was subsequently merged and called as Sericulture Demonstrators from the year 1981 by G.O. Ms. No. 603 dated 08.03.1989. Subsequently, Sericulture Demonstrators post itself has been merged with the Junior Inspector of Sericulture now called as Junior Inspector of Sericulture. It is well settled that once similarly placed persons as that of the respondents have been given a relief, the respondents are also entitled to get such benefits.;