{"id":98478,"date":"2011-03-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-03-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-ragavan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-march-2011"},"modified":"2015-11-04T21:50:19","modified_gmt":"2015-11-04T16:20:19","slug":"t-s-ragavan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-march-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-ragavan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-march-2011","title":{"rendered":"T.S.Ragavan vs The Secretary To Government on 4 March, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
T.S.Ragavan vs The Secretary To Government on 4 March, 2011<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 04\/03\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE  M.VENUGOPAL\n\nW.P.(MD)No.1414 of 2008\n\nT.S.Ragavan\t\t\t        \t \t... Petitioner\n\nVs.\n\n1.The Secretary to Government,\n  Highways Department,\n  Secretatiat,\n  Chennai-9.\n\n2.The Chief Engineer,\n  Highways,\n  Chennai-5.\n\n3.The Superintending Engineer,\n  National Highways,\n  Trichy.\n\n4.The Superintendent Engineer,\n  National Highways,\n  Madurai-20.\t\t\t\t\t\t... Respondents\n\t\nPrayer\n\nWrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to\nissue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records connected in the\nimpugned order passed by the Second Respondent in his Letter No.Nir\n5(1)\/91364\/2004 dated 23.08.2007 and quash the same and consequently direct the\nSecond Respondent to re-fix his pay in the category of selection grade\nDraughtsman Grade-I and consequential monitory and other retirement benefits due\nto him.\n\n!For Petitioner\t... Mr.R.Renga Ramanujam\n^For Respondents... Mr.D.Sasikumar,\n\t\t    Govt. Advocate.\n\t\t\t\n:ORDER\t\n<\/pre>\n
\tThe petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a relief of
\nWrit of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the
\nimpugned order passed by the Second Respondent in his Letter No.Nir
\n5(1)\/91364\/2004 dated 23.08.2007 and to quash the same and further the
\npetitioner has sought for issuance of a direction to the Second Respondent to
\nre-fix his pay in the category of Selection Grade Draughtsman Grade-I and to pay
\nthe consequential monetary and other retirement benefits.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.The petitioner was appointed as Road Inspector and joined on 04.04.1952.
\nHe was promoted as Draughtsman Grade-III with effect from 07.11.1957.  Later, he
\nwas promoted as Junior Engineer on 15.11.1970.  Being a I.T.I Group Certificate
\nHolder in Civil Engineering, the petitioner is fully qualified to hold the post
\nof Draughtsman.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.According to the petitioner, he had not exercised his option to become
\nJunior Engineer. However, he was promoted as Junior Engineer in view of the
\nexigency of service, as there was acute shortage of qualified and experienced
\nTechnical Personnel in view of the formation of National Highways, Rural Roads
\nWing and several on going schemes in the early  1970.  As such he was promoted
\nas Junior Engineer and joined on 15.11.1970.  His service in the category of
\nJunior Engineer was also regularised by the order of the Second Respondent dated
\n10.12.1970.  It was mentioned in the said order that pending fixation of pay in
\nthe post of Junior Engineer, he was entitled to draw his pay in the category of
\nDraughtsman.  He passed the requisite Departmental Examination in May 1972.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.The petitioner completed his probation  satisfactorily by virtue of the
\nproceedings with effect from 28.12.1972 as per the order of the Third Respondent
\ndated 06.07.1974.  Later, by virtue of the proceedings of the Second Respondent
\ndated 10.12.1977, it was cancelled.  In view of the cancellation of his
\nregularisation, though he was serving as Junior Engineer, he continued to draw
\nhis pay in the post of Draughtsman and till his retirement his services were not
\nregularised in the post of Junior Engineer and he was relieved on attaining the
\nage of superannuation on 31.01.1991 as temporary Junior Engineer.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner  was
\npromoted as Draughtsman Grade -II on 23.11.1970 and the petitioner was promoted
\nas Draughtsman  Grade-I, as per the order of Third Respondent dated 20.08.1973,
\nwithout prejudice to his holding the post of Supervisor(Junior Engineer).  He
\nwas entitled to Selection  Grade  in the category of Draughtsman Grade-I with
\neffect from 20.08.1973.  In spite of several representations he was not given
\nthe pay in Selection Grade as Draughtsman Grade-I but the Divisional Engineer
\nNational Highways, Ramnad, sent proposals for his selection grade in the
\ncategory of Draughtsman Grade-I by means of his letter dated 30.08.1990.
\nHowever, no order was passed till his retirement.  However, the pension
\nproposals were sent to the Accountant General based on his last drawn pay in the
\npost of Draughtsman Grade -I.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.The learned Counsel for the petitioner takes a plea that his pay was
\nrevised after nine years and that too after his retirement. To the shock of the
\npetitioner his pay was not fixed in the Draughtsman Grade-I post as prayed for.
\nHowever, the Second Respondent regularised his service and he was declared to
\nhave satisfactorily completed his probation with effect from 15.11.1972, as per
\norder dated 19.10.2000.  This was done after 28 years of his promotion as Junior
\nEngineer and 9 years after his retirement.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that to deny the
\nlegitimate claim of the petitioner his probation was declared nine years after
\nhis retirement.  The petitioner was awarded Selection Grade in the category of
\nJunior Engineer by the order of the Second Respondent dated 26.02.2001 with
\neffect from 15.11.1980 and Special Grade in the category of Junior Engineer was
\nawarded with effect from 15.11.1990, as per order dated 26.02.2001.  As such his
\nGratuity and other retirement benefits were recasted and resultantly a sum of
\nRs.416\/- was ordered to be recovered from his pension as per the order of the
\nFourth Respondent dated 28.01.2004.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.The core contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that his
\nlegitimate claim for promoting him in substantive post as Selection Grade-I
\nDraughtsman with effect from 20.08.1983, on completion of ten years of service
\nwas denied to him till his retirement despite several representations were made
\nin this regard.  As a matter of fact, the scale of pay of Selection Grade
\nDraughtsman Grade-I is higher than that of the Selection Grade post Junior
\nEngineer in which even they ought to have reverted the petitioner’s post in the
\ncategory of Draughtsman.  But instead of reversion, the petitioner was permitted
\nto serve as Junior Engineer temporarily with permission to continue to draw his
\npay in the pay scale of Draughtsman.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.The learned Counsel for the petitioner expatiating his submissions
\nprojects at a plea that the F.R.22 in Ruling 25 is not applicable to the
\npetitioner inasmuch as he has been transitorily holding the post of Junior
\nEngineer though substantive pay in the category of Draughtsman Grade-I is higher
\nthan the post of Junior Engineer.  Also, his regular promotion was cancelled by
\nthe Second Respondent by order dated  10.02.1977, since it was made contrary to
\nthe rules. Indeed, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the
\npetitioner is contends to draw his pay in the substantive post in the  category
\nof Draughtsman Grade-I.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.Apart from the above, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contents
\nthat in his representation as early as 21.01.1991, he is specifically mentioned
\nthat his juniors in the category of Draughtsman namely T.K.Raman and R.Gopalan
\nwere getting more pay than him and was granted Selection Grade in the category
\nof Grade-I Draughtsman.  In short, the said individuals who were working as
\nJunior Engineer from 02.02.1972 and from 17.10.1994 were granted Special Grade
\npay in the category of Draughtsman Grade-I category but the same benefit was
\ndenied to him in an arbitrary manner.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.The pith and substance of the submission of the learned Counsel for the
\npetitioner is that the F.R.22 ruling No.25 is not applicable to the petitioner
\nsince his pay was not fixed in the category of Junior Engineer from the date of
\nhis promotion on 15.11.1970, to the date of his retirement on 31.01.1991 and all
\npromotions from Grade-III Draughtsman to Grade- II and Grade-I were made without
\nprejudice to the holding post of Junior Engineer.  Moreover, he was drawing his
\npay in the category of Draughtsman  during his tenure of service of thirty years
\nin the category of temporary Junior Engineer and therefore the impugned order
\npassed by the Second Respondent in his Letter No.Nir 5(1)\/91364\/2004 dated
\n23.08.2007, is an illegal one and is liable to be set aside in the interest of
\njustice.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.In response, Mr.D.Sasikumar, Learned Government Advocate, appearing for
\nthe Respondents submit that the petitioner was appointed as Road Inspector
\ninitially and he joined duty on 04.04.1952.  He was promoted as Draughtsman
\nGrade-III and joined duty on 07.11.1957 and then he was promoted as Supervisor
\non Other Duty as Union Engineer and joined duty on 15.11.1970 in Nagapattinam
\nBlock.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.The Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents contends
\nthat the qualification for the post of Draughtsman Grade-III initially was
\npossessing I.T.I Group Certificate in Civil Engineering or SSLC Bifurcated
\nEngineering and later it was fixed as Licensed Course in Civil Engineering  and
\nDiploma in Civil Engineering.  He was temporarily appointed to the post of
\nDraughtsman Grade-III and therefore certain rules were relaxed as per
\nG.O.Ms.No.381\/PWD\/dated 08.02.1963 vide Chief Engineer(H), Chennai
\nEndt.No.91610\/F3\/61-35\/dated 02.03.1963.  After obtaining the relaxation, his
\nservices in the post of Draughtsman Grade -III was regularised during July 1965
\nwith effect from 07.11.1957.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.The Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents takes a
\nstand that as per the Chief Engineer’s Proceedings No.63956\/F5-70-11\/dated
\n06.11.1970, it was mentioned that those who are not willing to work as Union
\nEngineer and send his unwillingness report within a weeks time from the date of
\nreceipt of this order.  But the petitioner has not expressed his unwillingness
\nand he has joined duty as Union Engineer on 15.11.1970 in Nagapattinam Block
\n(Panchayat Union) on receipt of above orders from the Chief Engineer(H)Chennai.
\nTherefore, it is cleared that the petitioner was willing to work as Union
\nEngineer and joined as Union Engineer at his own option and not to force.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.The Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents contends
\nthat the Engineers, Road Inspectors and Gangs have been deputed to Panchayat
\nUnion Office from Highways and Rural Works Wing in the past days and therefore
\nthe petitioner was promoted as Supervisor and posted as Union Engineer,
\nPanchayat Union, Nagapatinnam.  Also, the formation of National Highways Wing
\nand Rural Roads Wings have been done in the year 1972 and not during the year
\n1970’s.  The petitioner passed the required department examination during May
\n1972.  His services were regularised with effect from 15.11.1970, by the Third
\nRespondent and orders were satisfactory completion of probation with effect from
\n28.12.1972 afternoon were issued by the Third Respondent as per proceeding
\nNo.15630\/74\/A2 dated 06.07.1974 of Superintending Engineer(H), Trichy in the
\ncategory of Supervisor.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.According to the Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Second
\nRespondent\/Chief Engineer, Highways Department, Chennai-5, as per his letter
\ndated 10.12.1970 in paragraph ‘2’ issued orders of promotion as per Rule 36(b)
\ninstead of 39(a) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules with effect
\nfrom the date of joining as (temporary) Supervisors.  Also, it was stated that
\n“Pending fixation of pay in the post of Supervisor they were allowed to draw the
\nexisting pay and allowances which was drawn in the post of  Draughtsman”.
\nLater, the said order was cancelled by the Second Respondent(Chief Engineer)(H),
\nChennai, as per the proceedings dated 10.02.1977, mentioning that the provisions
\nin the statutory Rules were not been taken into account before issuing the
\norders dated 10.12.1970.  As per Rule 39(a)(i) of Tamil Nadu State and
\nSubordinate Services, the persons already promoted were deemed to be temporary
\npromotees in the category of “Supervisor”.  Their pay in the post of temporary
\nSupervisors were to be regulated with reference to the provisions in General
\nRule 39(g) and pay drawn by them in excess, if any should be recovered from the
\nconcerned immediately.  Therefore, the orders already issued by the Chief
\nEngineer as per Proceedings dated 10.12.1970 was cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
\t17.At this stage, this Court points out that the Fourth Respondent in its
\ncounter as stated the following:\n<\/p>\n
\t“Under rule (25) of F.R.22, the pay of Draughtsman promoted as Supervisors
\nin Public Works and Highways Department should be fixed in the scale of pay
\napplicable to supervisors at the stages next above the pay they are actually
\ndrawing the time of promotion subject to the conditions.\n<\/p>\n
\ti)Once the pay of promotees is fixed in the category of supervisor, they
\nwill not be entitled to the higher rate of pay to which they would become
\neligible from time to time, consequent on the promotion to higher grades in the
\ncategory of Draughtsman; and\n<\/p>\n
\tii)he should be allowed to draw as Supervisor, the minimum of the scale of
\npay of Supervisor or his pay as Draughtsman, whichever is higher.
\n\tIn ruling (25) of F.R.22 the words “Draughtsman” and “Supervisor”
\noccurring above has been changed as “Senior Draughting Officer” and “Junior
\nEngineer” respectively during 1985.”\n<\/p>\n
  \t18.Besides, the above in paragraph ‘7’ of the counter, the Fourth
\nRespondent as stated hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
\t“that under Rule 39(g) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services, the
\npay shall be paid to the persons promoted under rule (a)(b)or (d) the highest of
\nthe following rates of pay:\n<\/p>\n
\ti)his substantive pay ; or\n<\/p>\n
\tii)the minimum of time scale of pay of the post to which he has been
\npromoted; to\n<\/p>\n
\tiii)the officiating pay which he would have drawn from time to time
\nimmediately prior to promotion under sub rule(a)(b) or (d) provided a
\ncertificate to the effect that but for such temporary appointment, the incumbent
\nwould have continued to be officiated in the post held by them immediately prior
\nto the temporary appointment shall be issued by the appointing authority for the
\nofficiating post.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the circumstances explained above the petitioner Thiru T.S.Raghavan is
\neligible to fix his pay in the post of Supervisor only based on the pay last
\ndrawn in the post of Draughtsman III Grade has been taken into account and the
\nstage next above in the lower post or the minimum of the time scale of pay
\neligible for the post of Supervisor.  Hence, the fixation made under the
\nProceeding of this office is found correct and the statement of the petitioner
\nis a false one.”\n<\/p>\n
\t19.It is to be noted that the post of “Supervisor” as per
\nG.O.Ms.No.294\/PWD\/dated 22.02.1977, were to be redesignated as Junior Engineer
\non the existing Scale of pay and with the existing powers and functions.
\nFurthermore, the post of Draughtsman has been redesignated as follows:
\n\t D’man Grade III\t:As Junior Draughting Officer
\n\t D’man Grade II\t:As Draughting Officer
\n\t D’man Grade I\t:As Senior Draughting Officer<\/p>\n
\t20.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents
\nstrenuously contents that as per F.R.22(25) the Draughtsman(now as Senior
\nDraughting Officer) promoted as Supervisor(now designated as Junior Engineer)
\nwas eligible to fix his pay as the next stage of pay in the substantive post or
\nminimum of time scale of the supervisor post.\n<\/p>\n
\t21.At the time of promotion, the petitioner drew a salary of Rs.250\/- as
\nhis pay in the post of Draughtsman Grade III in the scale of pay at Rs.250-10-
\n400 as per the provisions contained in the Second Pay Commission with effect
\nfrom 02.10.1970.  He joined as Supervisor in Nagapattinam Panchayat Union on his
\nown willingness.  The pay of Supervisor was fixed at Rs.325\/-(i.e) minimum of
\nthe time scale eligible for the post of Supervisor i.e. Rs.325-15-475-20-575-25-
\n650 as per Second Pay Commission with effect from 15.11.1970.  As per
\nG.O.Ms.No.106\/PWD\/ dated 22.01.77, the scale of pay of Supervisor was revised as
\nRs.350-15-425-20-525-25-700.  Therefore, the pay of the petitioner was revised
\naccordingly and the pay was fixed at Rs.350-\/ from the date of joining in the
\npost of Supervisor as per the proceedings dated 09.01.2004.\n<\/p>\n
\t22.The Learned Government Advocate for the Respondents puts forward a plea
\nthat though the petitioner joined as temporary Supervisor, the acting post was
\ntreated as officiating post and the lower post namely Draughtsman III Grade
\n(i.e) before promoting as Supervisor was treated as Substantive  post to avoid
\nthe hardship to the petitioner in getting the pay in the officiating post, he
\nwas allowed to draw the pay of Draughtsman (i.e) Substantive Post as Substantive
\npay.  Since the petitioner continued in the post of Supervisor, the promotions
\ndue under the category of Draughtsman were ordered if he was to be reverted in
\ndue course from the post of Supervisor.  The order order of promotions in the
\ncategory of Draftsmen Grade-III, Grade-II and Grade-I were seems to be as “Paper
\nPostings”.  He was not reverted from the post of Supervisor and continued in the
\nsame category till the date of his retirement on 31.01.1991 afternoon(The post
\nof Supervisor was redesignated as Junior Engineer from 22.02.1977).\n<\/p>\n
\t23.The principal contention advanced on behalf of the  Respondents is that
\nthe orders issued under Rule 36(b) dated 10.12.1970, due to administrative
\nreasons were cancelled subsequently by the Chief Engineer(H) on 10.02.1977
\n(i.e., the Second Respondent) as certain provisions under Service Rules were not
\nconsidered while issuing orders dated 10.12.1970 and therefore the orders issued
\ndated 10.12.1970, becomes null and void.\n<\/p>\n
\t24.In this connection, it is worthwhile for this Court to make a
\nsignificant mentioned that the Third Respondent\/the Superintending Engineer (H)
\nTrichy issued orders of promotion to the petitioner from the post of Draughtsman
\nGrade-III to Draughtsman Grade-II  and then Draughtsman Grade-I respectively on
\n23.11.1970 and 20.08.1973 without prejudice to the holding the post of
\nSupervisor (Junior Engineer) and in the orders of promotion it was mentioned
\nthat the same was issued without prejudice to the petitioner holding the post of
\nSupervisor so as to draw his pay without any lapse and in short the promotion
\norders were only paper postings so as to draw the pay.\n<\/p>\n
\t25.The Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents submits
\nthat as per Rules no person is eligible to the Selection Grade for the post in
\nwhich he has not acted and since the petitioner is not joined duty in the post
\nof Draughtsman Grade-II and Grade-I he claimed the Selection Grade-I Draughtsman
\npost as if he drawn the pay eligible in the post of Grade-I Draughtsman(Senior
\nDraughting Officer) and all the more the petitioner was informed orally in the
\nyear 1990 when he claimed the Selection Grade in the Grade-I Draughtsman
\ncategory when he approached the Fourth Respondent office through the Divisional
\nEngineer(National Highways), Ramanathapuram.\n<\/p>\n
\t26.The other limb of submission made by the learned Government Advocate
\nappearing for the Respondents is that while receiving the orders of promotion as
\nDraughtsman Grade-I on 20.08.1983, the petitioner in spite of claim of the post
\nof Draughtsman Grade-I by exercising his option to that post, he had opted to
\nhold the post of Supervisor with higher powers and higher responsibilities than
\nthat of Draughtsman Grade-I and continued the post of Supervisor(now Junior
\nEngineer) till the date of his retirement.\n<\/p>\n
\t27.Furthermore, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the
\nRespondents submits that the name of the post and the Scale of pay in each post
\nin the Second Pay Commission at the time of joining in the post of Supervisor
\nare as follows:\n<\/p>\n
POST\t\t\tSCALE OF PAY
\nDraughtsman III Grade\t250-10-400
\nDraughtsman II Grade\t325-15-550
\nDraughtsman I Grade\t400-15-475-20-575-25-650
\nSupervisor\t\t325-15-475-20-575-25-650 and than
\n\t\t\t350-15-425-20-525-25-700<\/p>\n
\t28.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents brings to
\nthe notice of this Court that during 1970-1979 no Selection Grade was awarded to
\nthe category 3(a) and  (b)  Civil Draughtsman Grade-I, II,III Category (2) Head
\nDraughtsman in the office of the Chief Engineer(Highways) and category
\n(1)Supervisor as per Madras Highways Engineering Subordinate Service Rules.  In
\nthe year 1978, the Selection Grade post were created, but the Selection Grade
\nPost and promotive post seems to be identical thus:-\n<\/p>\n
POST\t\t\tORDINARY SCALE\t\t\tSELECTION GRADE
\nDraughtsman III Grade\t400-15-490-20-650-25-700\t450-20-590-25-740-30-800
\nDraughtsman II Grade\t450-20-590-25-740-30-800\t525-25-675-30-855-35-925
\nDraughtsman I Grade\t600-30-750-35-890-40-1050\t675-35-885-45-1200
\nHEAD Draughtsman\t675-35-885-45-1200\t\tNo Selection Grade
\nSpecial Grade
\nDraughtsman<\/p>\n
Chief Head\t\t750-50-1350\t\t\tNo Selection Grade
\nDraughtsman<\/p>\n
Supervisor\t\t525-25-675-30-855-35-925\t600-30-750-35-890-40-1050<\/p>\n
Therefore, the Selection Grade in the Draughtsman Grade-I was not awarded to the
\npetitioner the pay in the substantive post i.e. up to Draughtsman I Grade (i.e.
\nSenior Draughting) Officer has been allowed as substantive pay with increments
\ndue.\n<\/p>\n
\t29.The next submission of the Learned Government Advocate appearing for
\nthe Respondents is that there is no loss in the pay last drawn by the petitioner
\nand his basic pay already calculated is Rs.2,240\/- and now it has been revised
\nas Rs.2,300\/- for which he has received additional amount of Rs.1,122\/-
\n(Rs.42,884-41,762) and because of change of increment date from  First July to
\nFirst October there is a difference of Rs.(2,511- (-) 2,507) Rs.4\/- less than
\nthe average pay calculated, which results Rs.2\/- less than may be ignored,
\nbecause the said sum is a trivial in nature.  Inasmuch as the petitioner till
\nhis retirement has held the post of Supervisor is eligible to get the pay for
\nthe post of Supervisor only and not to the post of  Draughtsman Grade-I and
\nviewed in the perspective the writ petition is liable to be dismissed by this
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
\t30.At this stage, it is useful to refer the proceedings of the Second
\nRespondent\/Chief Engineer, (Highways and Rural Works)Chepauk,Chennai-5, in his
\nproceedings No.63956-F5\/70-17 dated 10.02.1970, wherein 28 individuals(including
\nthe writ petitioner) who figures in Serial No.6) have been promoted as
\nSupervisor temporarily from the post of Draughtsman as per Rule 39(a) of the
\nTamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules and further the aforesaid
\npersons have been promoted regularly as Supervisors as per rules 36(b) of the
\nTamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules with effect from the dates of
\ntheir joined duty as Supervisors and their seniority in the category of
\nSupervisors is indicated therein.  Also, pending fixation of pay in the post of
\nSupervisor, the individuals have allowed to draw the existing pay and allowances
\nwhich have drawn in the post of Draftsmen.  Moreover, they have been informed
\nSpecial Rules for Madras Highways Engineering Subordinate Service, that they
\nought to pass the Account test for Highways and Rural Works Department Officers
\nSubordinate Services within a period of two years on duty within a continuous
\nperiod of three years in order to earn their increments without any penalty and
\nto be become eligible for declaration of completion of probation.\n<\/p>\n
\t31.The Chief Engineer’s(Highways and Rural Works) as per the proceedings
\nNo.9242\/Con\/71-29 dated 10.02.1977 as stated that when the petitioner and others
\nwere regularised of service as Draughtsman promotes Supervisors, on regular
\nbasis as per Rule 36(b) of the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and
\nSubordinate Services, in the category of Supervisors etc.  On a review of this
\norder, that he has found that:-\n<\/p>\n
\t i)Proviso (3) under entry (4) in column (2) against item (1) Supervisor’s
\nin the Table under Rule 3(a) of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Highways
\nEngineering Subordinate Services.\n<\/p>\n
\t  ii)Rule 3(d) of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Highways
\nEngineering Subordinate Services;\n<\/p>\n
\tiii)Rule 6 of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Highways Engineering
\nSubordinate Services; and\n<\/p>\n
\tiv)General Rule 35(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services.
\nThey have not been taken into consideration for issuing the proceedings dated
\n10.02.1977 and therefore the same is liable to be set aside as illegal and hence
\nhe has cancelled the orders regularising the temporary services in the category
\nof Supervisor and fixing the rank in the seniority list of Supervisors of the
\npersonnel referred to in paragraph 1 and subsequently it has been made clear
\nthat the orders issued, if any, by the S.Es(H & RW) for declaration of
\ncompletion of promotion of these 28 Supervisors have also been to be cancelled
\nand the concerned S.Es are requested to issue cancellation of promotion of the
\ndeclaration of probation in individual cases, immediately and to report the fact
\nto the Chief Engineer(H & RW) etc.<\/p>\n
\t32.Moreover, the proceedings of the Second Respondent dated 10.02.1977,
\ngoes to state that the petitioner and two others have been deemed to be
\ntemporary promotes in the category of “Supervisor” under General Rule 39(a)(i)
\nof the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services and their pay in the post of
\ntemporary supervisor have been directed to be regularised by the concerned
\nSuperintending Engineers under whom they are working at present with reference
\nto the ingredients of  General Rule 39(g) and the pay drawn by them if any
\nexcess have been recovered from the concerned individuals immediately.\n<\/p>\n
\t33.The petitioner in his representation dated 21.01.1991, addressed to the
\nSecond Respondent\/Chief Engineer(Highways & Rural Works),Chepuak, Chennai-5, as
\nstated that interse seniority list of Draughtsman in Grade-III, Grade-II and
\nGrade-I as on 01.08.1978 of the petitioner, T.K.Raman and R.Gopalan as
\ncommunicated by the Second Respondent\/Chief Engineer(H & RW)Madras, in the
\nstatement is enclosed for kind perusal and further it is made mentioned of that
\nT.K.Raman and R.Gopalan who are Juniors in Draughtsman   Grade -III are now
\ngetting a basic pay of Rs.2,425\/- as on 01.07.1990 and  Rs.2,650\/- as on
\n01.10.1989 respectively etc and also that the Draughtsman Grade-I as on
\n20.08.1973 and other Juniors are receiving more pay than his basic pay of
\nRs.2,240\/- and since, he has not been given Selection Grade in Draughtsman
\nGrade-I  and Selection Grade in Junior Engineers cadres(Completed 20 years of
\nJunior Engineers Service  as on 15.11.1990) and that he has now retiring from
\nservice.  Therefore, he prayed for re-fixation of pay on par with the pay of
\nJuniors.\n<\/p>\n
\t34.In the interse seniority list of Draughtsman  as on 01.08.1978 the name
\nof the petitioner is shown in Serial No.1 and his date of birth as 22.01.1933.
\nHis Serial number in the seniority list of Draughtsman in the Grade-III is ’13’
\nand the date of regularisation is 07.11.1957.  The seniority list of Draughtsman
\nin Grade-II, the petitioner in Serial No.61.  The date of Regularisation is on
\n23.11.1970.  The petitioner seniority list in Draughtsman in  Grade-I is at 45
\nin Serial Number the date of Regularisation  is 20.08.1973 and his present pay
\nof Rs.2,240\/- as on 01.07.1990.  In the remarks  column it is mentioned that the
\npetitioner has been on other duty as Junior Engineer from 15.11.1970 as approved
\nprobationer in Overseers, Draughtsman promoted as Junior Engineer in Serial
\nNo.3.\n<\/p>\n
\t35.The petitioner as Junior Engineer as per the proceedings dated
\n19.10.2000 of the Second Respondent has completed the probation in the post of
\nJunior Engineer on 15.11.1972 afternoon.\n<\/p>\n
\t36.The petitioner as Junior Engineer has been awarded the Special Grade in
\nthe post of Junior Engineer on 26.02.2001 as per the proceedings of the Second
\nRespondent and the salary has been increased as Rs.2200-75-2800-100-4000 in the
\nsaid time scale.  On 26.02.2001, the Second Respondent\/Chief Engineer has
\nproposed to recover the additional salary paid to the petitioner.  The Fourth
\nRespondent\/Superintending Engineer, National Highways, Madurai-20, has issued a
\nmemo to the petitioner requiring him to express his willingness in regard to the
\nrecovery of excess amount from and out of the fixation of salary and monetary
\nbenefits within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the same.   The
\npetitioner on 15.04.2001 has submitted a petition and has also prayed for to
\ngrant of Selection Grade in the cadre of Draughtsman Grade-I to him.\n<\/p>\n
\t37.The petitioner(Retd) in his representation dated 12.08.1999, addressed
\nto the Second Respondent has among other things stated that   he is eligible for
\nSelection Grade in the post of Draughtsman  Grade-I as on 20.08.1983, eventhough
\nhe worked as Junior Engineer on temporary basis till retirement which carries
\nlesser time scale of pay as per General Rules also and therefore he prayed for
\nissuance of favourable orders in granting him the Selection Grade as on
\n20.08.1983 and fixation of pay on par with four juniors as mentioned in the
\nrepresentation.  According to him, one unit system of Seniority in Draftsman I
\nGrade as on 01.08.1973 etc.  The Fourth Respondent by means of order dated
\n28.01.2004 has issued a proceeding claim recovery of Rs.416\/- which has to pay<\/p>\n
to the Government and the petitioner further has been directed to pay the said
\namount in the Treasury and to submit the challan to the Office and the
\npetitioner has been also directed to submit the fresh proposal in respect of
\npension along with enclosure thereto.  On 27.05.2004 the Fourth Respondent in
\nhis letter addressed to the Accountant General, Chennai-18, as stated that the
\npay of the petitioner has been refixed in the revised scale of pay as on
\n15.11.1970 in the cadre of Junior Engineer and the Revised pension calculation
\nsheet based on the revised pay fixation have been worked out as mentioned
\ntherein and also prayed for the revised pensionary benefits to the petitioner to
\nbe admitted and necessary payment orders will be issued to him early.  As per
\nthe calculation sheet the average pay of the petitioner  has been worked out as
\nRs.25,278 divided by 10 is Rs.2,528\/- and 50% of pension has been worked out as
\nRs.1,264\/- and further it is mentioned as hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
\tD.C.R.G.Eligible:PLD +DA 13% x 16.50 = Rs.2300 + 299 x 16.50  =
\nRs.42,883.50 or Rs.42,884\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tFamily Pension \t:PLD x 50%
\n\tFor Ist 7 years\t:2599 x 50%\n<\/p>\n
\t\t ———\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t 100\t\t\t= Rs.1299.50
\n\t\t \t\t\tor\t  Rs.1,300\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tAfter 7 years\t\t:2599 x 30\n<\/p>\n
\t\t ———\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t    100\t\t= Rs.779.70
\n\t \t\t\tor\t  Rs.780\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tCommutation of Pension:50% of Average pay
\n\t\t\t\t\t\tRs.1264 x 1\/3 =Rs.421\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\tRs.421 x 12×10.46= Rs.52,843.90
\n\t\t\t\t\tor Rs.52,844\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t38.The Accountant General(A&E) Tamil Nadu has issued an Authorisation of
\nRevision of Pension in respect of the petitioner as follows:
\n\tClass of Pension\t:Superannuation
\n\tOriginal Pension\t:Rs.1256\/-w.e.f 01.02.1991
\n\t\t\t\t\t (Rupees One Thousand Two
\n\t\t\t\t\t Hundreds and Fifty Six only)<\/p>\n
\tRevised Pension\t:Rs.1254\/-w.e.f 01.02.1991
\n\t\t\t\t\t (Rupees One Thousand Two
\n\t\t\t\t\t Hundreds and Fifty Four only)<\/p>\n
\tRevised Family
\n\tPension(Enhanced) :Rs.1254\/-up to 21.01.1998
\n\t\t\t\t\t (Rupees One Thousand Two
\n\t\t\t\t\t Hundreds and Fifty Four only)\tRevised Family
\n\tPension(Normal)\t:Rs.780\/-thereafter
\n\t\t\t\t \t(Rupees Seven Hundred and
\n\t\t Eighty  only)\t<\/p>\n
\t39.The petitioner has submitted a representation dated 08.08.2005 to the
\nSecond Respondent pertaining to the fixation of pay in Selection Grade as on
\n20.08.1983 and in Special Grade in par with Juniors as per Item Nos.56,60,61 and
\n62 of Seniority List of Draftsman Grade-I.  In the typed set of papers the
\npetitioner has enclosed a copy of G.O.Ms.No.191, Highways(HM 1)Department dated
\n13.09.2005, pertaining to one S.Balasubramaniam in and by which the Government
\nhas decided to create a supernumerary post of Special Grade Draughtsman with
\neffect from 03.10.1970 in the scale of pay of Rs.475-25-650-30-810 to
\naccommodate and to regulate the pay of S.Balasubramaniam in the post of Special
\nGrade Draughtsman with effect from 03.10.1970 etc.  Further, it is ordered that
\nhe is eligible to draw arrears of pay and allowances consequent on the creation
\nof the supernumerary post.\n<\/p>\n
\t40.On 11.11.2006, the petitioner has addressed a petition to the
\nHonourable Chief Minister Grievance Cell, Chennai-9, wherein he has prayed for
\npassing of favourable orders as Selection Grade Draftsman as on 20.08.1983 and
\nthen Head Drafting Officer comparing to his Juniors. In his representation, the
\npetitioner has stated among other things that he is eligible for Head Draftsman
\nas per similar promotion given to one T.Kailasam.\n<\/p>\n
\t41.On 30.11.2006, the Fourth Respondent in his communication addressed to
\nthe Second Respondent has stated among other things that he has been promoted as
\nJunior Engineer temporarily from the post of Draughtsman and since his
\nregularisation as Junior Engineer has held to be irregular as per order of Chief
\nEngineer dated 10.12.1977 and further he has  stated that he is retired as
\ntemporary Junior Engineer  and his salary cannot be fixed in the post of
\nDraughtsman or equal to that of those Draughtsman in service etc.<\/p>\n
\t42.Again, the petitioner send a communication dated 06.12.2006 to the
\nSecond Respondent wherein  he has prayed for passing of orders by the Second
\nRespondent by perusal of records noted in his Service Register on the basis of
\nhis retention temporarily on other duty as a Junior Engineer till 31.01.1991
\nnamely the date of retirement.\n<\/p>\n
\t43.Finally, the Chief Engineer, in his letter dated 23.08.2007, addressed
\nto the Special Officer  of the Chief Minister’s Cell, Secretariat, Chennai-9 has
\namong other things stated that since the petitioner has retired on 31.01.1991 in
\nthe post of Junior Engineer and therefore in the post of Draughtsman  his salary
\ncannot be determined and also that before  preparing the list of Head
\nDraughtsman promotion post since the petitioner has retired in the post of
\nJunior Engineer his request for promotion cannot be granted and finally his
\nrequest has been rejected.\n<\/p>\n
\t44.It is to be pointed out that a change of appointment may occur on
\naccount of diverse factors like promotion appointment to a different cadre or
\npost, permanent transfer, deputation, merger of units re-deployment of process
\netc.  Whatever may be the reason for change of appointment the last pay drawn by
\nthe employee is to be protected always.  As a matter of fact, the protection of
\nlast pay is so important a condition of service that were necessary protection
\nhas to be given by grant of personal pay which could be adjusted with a few
\nincrements.  Also, there can be no distinction between the pay drawn in the
\nhigher post in Adhoc manner or in a regular fashion as opined by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t45.Promotion as its understood in service jurisprudence is nothing but
\nadvancement in rank or  care or both.  Promotion is always a step forward
\ntowards a higher position and power.  A mere discharge of duties of a post with
\na higher pay does not mean promotion.   There is no right to promotion.
\nPromotion is a positive act of elevation in status conveyed by an employer by
\nmeans of written communication issued in favour to the person promoted and
\ncommunicated to him. It entails the duties of higher responsibilities.  It must
\nbe satisfy the post of selection in the  manner prescribed either as per statute
\nor administrative instructions.\n<\/p>\n
\t46.Wherein, an employee changes his cadre and takes an appointment to an
\naltogether different post which has no comparison with a previous post then loss
\nof pay cannot be help, in the considered opinion of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t47.Section 36(b) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules
\nrefers to promotions to Selection category or grade which reads as follows:
\n\t“36 b(i)Promotions in a service or class to a selection category or to a
\nselection grade shall be made on grounds of merit and ability, seniority, being
\nconsidered only where merit and ability are approximately equal.  The inter-se-
\nseniority among the persons found suitable for such promotion shall be with
\nreference to the inter-se-seniority of such persons in the lower post.\n<\/p>\n
   *(ii)Promotion according to seniority-All other promotions shall, be made in
\naccordance with seniority unless-\n<\/p>\n
\t(1)the promotion of a Member has been withheld as a penalty, or<\/p>\n
\t(2)a Member is given special promotion for conspicuous merit and ability.\n<\/p>\n
 \t*Substituted in G.O.Ms.No.295,P & AR dated 12-5.1988, w.e.f. 11.6.87.\n<\/p>\n
\t48.The Learned Counsel for the petitioner interalia refers to
\nG.O.Ms.No.215 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel-M) Department,
\ndated 01.03.1979 for appointment to Selection Grade\/Special Grades, all
\nofficers, who have put in ten years of satisfactory service may be considered
\nirrespective of whether they are qualified for promotion to a higher post or
\nnot.  Also, the said Government order speaks of persons who are on other duty
\nmay also be appointed to Selection Grade\/Special Grade with reference to the
\nguidelines.\n<\/p>\n
\t49.In this connection the aforesaid G.O specifies that the seniors in one
\nunit list will also be appointed to the Selection Grade posts with effect from
\nthe date on which their Juniors are appointed to the Selection Grade posts,
\neventhough the seniors might not have actually put in the required ten years of
\nservice etc.<\/p>\n
\t50.Again, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner refers to Government
\nMemorandum No.17177\/PC\/-IA\/79-2 Finance (Pay Commission) Department dated
\n28.06.1979, which directs that the pay of a Government servant appointed to the
\nSelection Grade post on the date of accrual of increment in the Ordinary Grade
\npost may be fixed without taking into account the increment that accrued in the
\nOrdinary Grade Scale of pay and he may be allowed to draw his increment on that
\ndate in the Selection Grade scale of pay.\n<\/p>\n
\t51.Further, he brings to his aid the G.O.Ms.No.68 Personnel and
\nAdministrative Reforms (Per-M)Department  dated 23.01.1986 which speaks of fresh
\nguidelines to be followed while moving the Government employees to the Selection
\nGrades\/Special Grades.\n<\/p>\n
\t52.Also, G.O.Ms.No.151 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR-II)
\nDepartment, dated 20.02.1982, speaks of rectification of anomaly as refers the
\nappointment from Ordinary Grade to Selection Grade posts junior drawing more pay
\nthan senior.\n<\/p>\n
\t53.It is seen from the proceedings of the Second Respondent\/Chief Engineer
\ndated 10.12.1970 that the petitioner and the 27 others have been promoted
\nregularly as Supervisors with effect from the date of their joining duty as
\nSupervisor as per Rule 36(b) of the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and
\nSubordinate Services Rules etc.  But as per the proceedings of the Second
\nRespondent dated 10.12.1977 the promotion of the petitioner and other 28
\nSupervisors are deemed to have been cancelled and the concerned Superintending
\nEngineers are requested to issue cancellation orders of the orders of the
\ndeclaration of probation in individual cases etc.  It is not made clear as to
\nwhether the Second Respondent has any power to issue the proceedings dated
\n10.02.1977 in issuing the cancellation orders after promoting the petitioner and
\nothers as per the proceedings dated 10.02.1970, after a lapse of seven years and
\nif so under what Rules and Regulations etc.  Admittedly, the petitioner is not
\nresponsible for issuance of promotion proceeding dated 10.12.1970, by the Second
\nRespondent.  Also, he cannot be found fault with for his temporary promotion as
\nper the proceedings dated 10.12.1970.  Even though the Fourth Respondent has
\nstated that the provisions of statutory note are not taken into consideration
\nbefore issuing the orders dated 10.12.1970, even for the same the petitioner and
\nother 27 persons are not responsible for this.  The respondents have taken a
\nspecific stand that the petitioner is not eligible for Selection Grade in the
\ncategory of Draftsman Grade-I  has not acted in that post.  Also, further he has
\nnot joined in the category of Draughtsman Grade-II and Draughtsman Grade I from
\n15.11.1970 namely the date of joining in the post of Supervisor till his
\nretirement.  The Respondents have taken a plea that the proceedings of the
\nSecond Respondent dated 10.12.1970, subsequently cancelled by the proceedings
\ndated 10.02.1977, certain provisions of the service rules have not considered
\nwhile issuing order dated 10.12.1970.  Therefore, the moot query that arises for
\none’s rumination is whether the Second Respondent\/  Chief Engineer is competent
\nto issue the cancellation proceedings dated 10.02.1977, cancelling the earlier
\norders and dated 10.12.1970 and if so under what provisions\/relevant statutory
\nService Rules if any.    Equally, the petitioner is also supposed to explain his
\nposition as to whether he has acted in the category of Draughtsman Grade-I  and
\nif so whether he is eligible to claim Selection Grade.  Furthermore, he is to
\nstate that whether he has joined in the category of Draughtsman Grade-I and
\nDraughtsman Grade-I from 15.11.1970 namely the date of joining in the post of
\nSupervisor till his date of retirement.  That apart a promotion is nothing but
\nstep forward to a higher position and power when the petitioner and 27 others
\nhave been promoted as per the proceedings of the Second Respondent dated
\n10.12.1970.  It is strange to hear from the Respondents that the petitioner and
\nothers have been given the promotion orders and they are only ‘paper postings
\nso as to draw the  pay.  If no Selection Grade is eligible for a person in
\nregard to a post in which he is not acted according to the rules then it is the
\nduty of the Respondents to intimate the petitioner in writing about his claim of
\nSelection Grade in the Grade-I Draughtsman even in the year 1990 when he is
\npurportedly approached the Office of the Fourth Respondent through the
\nDivisional Engineer, Highways, Ramnad. It is also to be clarified by the
\nRespondents as to whether the petitioner is entitled to give an option to hold
\nthe post of Supervisor with higher power and responsibilities than that of
\nDraughtsman Grade-I etc.  When he has not claimed the post of Draughtsman Grade-
\nI at the time of receiving the orders of promotion Draughtsman Grade-I on
\n20.08.1973.  Therefore, this Court opines that the petitioner is to state in
\nwriting to the Second Respondent (a)as to whether he has held the post of
\nSupervisor continuously from 15.11.1970, till the date of his retirement without
\nany break so as to found out his eligibility as to his entitlement for Selection
\nGrade in Draughtsman Grade-I, (b) to state whether he has acted in the post of
\nDraughtsman Grade-II and (c)Grade-I and whether he is entitled to get Selection
\nGrade in Draughtsman Grade-I as he held the post of Supervisor.\n<\/p>\n
\t54.On a careful consideration of respective contentions and inasmuch as
\nthe impugned order of the Second Respondent dated 23.08.2007, refers to the fact
\nof the petitioner as serving as Junior Engineer and retired in the same post on
\n31.01.1991 and therefore his salary cannot be determined in the post of
\nDraughtsman etc and on over all assessment of facts and circumstances of the
\ncase this Court directs the petitioner to submit a detail, complete and a
\ncomprehensive representation  to the Second Respondent or the concerned
\nauthorities (citing the relevant G.Os and Rules together with necessary
\nenclosures) as the case may be by stating whether he has acted in the post of
\nDraughtsman Grde-I and Grade -II etc and to specify the post held by him till
\nhis retirement so as to make a legitimate and lawful claim.  Also, he is to make
\na mention in the representation whether he claimed the post of Draughtsman
\nGrade-I by giving an option to that post when he received the orders of
\npromotion of Draughtsman Grade-I on 20.08.1973 and further whether  he acted to
\nhold the post of Supervisor with a particular reference to the power of higher
\nresponsibilities than that of the Draughtsman Grade-I and continued in the post
\nof Supervisor (now Junior Engineer) till his retirement within a period of four
\nweeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On receipt of the
\npetitioner’s fresh  representation, the Second Respondent is to consider the
\nsame dispassionately on merits and to pass a speaking and a reasoned order with
\nqualitative and quantitative details by assigning reasons and making a specific
\nmention whether the statutory rules permits for cancellation of the issuance of
\nthe proceedings dated 10.02.1977 and if so to quote the relevant rules and
\nmoreover to indicate whether the rules provide for any time limit  or limitation
\nor no limitation in regard to the issuance of cancellation of the proceedings
\ndated 10.02.1977 as the case may be because of the fact that these aspects will
\nhave to be gone into necessarily by the authorities concerned and it is open to
\nthe Second Respondent to pass a reasoned, speaking and dispassionate order on
\nmerits untrammeled and uninfluenced with any of the observations made by this
\nCourt within a period of six weeks thereafter.  The Second Respondent is to
\nprovide adequate opportunity to the petitioner by confirming to the principles
\nof natural justice before passing the said order in the  subject matter in
\nissue. In case if the Second Respondent comes to the conclusion (as regards the
\norders to be passed)that the petitioner is not entitled to claim\tthe relief of
\nselection grade in the category of Draughtman Grade-I then in that event the
\nSecond Respondent is directed not to recover a sum of Rs.416\/-(Excess amount
\npaid) as ordered by the Fourth Respondent in the proceedings dated 28.01.2004.
\nIf the said sum of Rs.416\/- has already been recovered from the petitioner, then
\nthe same is directed to be refunded to him by the Respondents 2 and 4 by means
\nof issuance of appropriate proceedings so as to enable him to receive the same
\nin the manner known to law.  The reason for this Court passing an order of
\nequitable relief in this regard is because of the reason for an excess payment
\nmade the petitioner is not anyway responsible for the mistake if any committed
\nby the authorities concerned.  Further, a Government servant getting a monthly
\nsalary will be spending his money for attending to his family needs besides
\nattending to his needs.   Therefore, there will not be any sum left for his
\nsavings taking into account the spiralling rise in prices of Essential
\ncommodities, cost of inflation and value of the money etc (Although in common
\nLaw one is to entitled to recover an excess payment made to a person, since no
\none can enrich himself unlawfully as per Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act,
\n1872).\n<\/p>\n
\t55.Accordingly, with these directions, the writ petition is disposed of
\nleaving the parties  to bear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n
gsr<\/p>\n
TO\n<\/p>\n
1.The Secretary to Government,
\n  Highways Department,
\n  Secretatiat,
\n  Chennai-9.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Chief Engineer,
\n  Highways,
\n  Chennai-5.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Superintending Engineer,
\n  National Highways,
\n  Trichy.\n<\/p>\n
4.The Superintendent Engineer,
\n  National Highways,
\n  Madurai-20.\t\t\t<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court T.S.Ragavan vs The Secretary To Government on 4 March, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04\/03\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL W.P.(MD)No.1414 of 2008 T.S.Ragavan … Petitioner Vs. 1.The Secretary to Government, Highways Department, Secretatiat, Chennai-9. 2.The Chief Engineer, Highways, Chennai-5. 3.The Superintending Engineer, National Highways, Trichy. 4.The […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-98478","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nT.S.Ragavan vs The Secretary To Government on 4 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-ragavan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T.S.Ragavan vs The Secretary To Government on 4 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-ragavan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-04T16:20:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"37 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-ragavan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-march-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-ragavan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-march-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T.S.Ragavan vs The Secretary To Government on 4 March, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-04T16:20:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-ragavan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-march-2011\"},\"wordCount\":7320,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-ragavan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-march-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-ragavan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-march-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-ragavan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-march-2011\",\"name\":\"T.S.Ragavan vs The Secretary To Government on 4 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-04T16:20:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-ragavan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-march-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-ragavan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-march-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-ragavan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-march-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T.S.Ragavan vs The Secretary To Government on 4 March, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"T.S.Ragavan vs The Secretary To Government on 4 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-ragavan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-march-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T.S.Ragavan vs The Secretary To Government on 4 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-ragavan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-march-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-04T16:20:19+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"37 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-ragavan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-march-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-ragavan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-march-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T.S.Ragavan vs The Secretary To Government on 4 March, 2011","datePublished":"2011-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-04T16:20:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-ragavan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-march-2011"},"wordCount":7320,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-ragavan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-march-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-ragavan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-march-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-ragavan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-march-2011","name":"T.S.Ragavan vs The Secretary To Government on 4 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-04T16:20:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-ragavan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-march-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-ragavan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-march-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-ragavan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-march-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T.S.Ragavan vs The Secretary To Government on 4 March, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/98478","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=98478"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/98478\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=98478"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=98478"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=98478"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}