Ayyanar v. The Principal Secretary to Government

ORDER The petitioner is an employee of the respondent Transport Corporation. He has been engaged as workman in the corporation and subsequently he has been promoted to the managerial cadre on

04.03.2017.

¶2The wage revision applicable to the petitioner while he was working as workman is based on the wage settlement. The petitioner has availed the benefit of wage revision as per the Wage Settlement of the years 2010 and 2013. Subsequent wage revision was made only on

04.01.2018, it was implemented notionally on 01.09.2016 and monetary benefit was given with effect from 01.09.2017.

¶3Since the petitioner has been promoted to the managerial cadre, he is covered under the pay commission revision. Pay Commission revision is made once in 10 years. However the wage settlements are made once in 3 years.

¶4The petitioner claims that since he has been promoted to the managerial cadre, he has not been provided with the benefits under the wage settlement and therefore, the petitioner claims wage revision as per the pay commission recommendations implemented vide G.O.Ms.No.303 at the rate of 2.57 multiplier. Whereas the department claims that the petitioner has availed the wage settlement benefits and therefore, he is entitled for pay revision at the rate of 2.44 multiplier.

¶5Claiming pay revision @ 2.57 multiplier some of the workmen have filed writ petitions before the Principal Seat and the same were allowed, confirmed by the Division Bench and also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The revision petition filed by the department was dismissed. Therefore, the employees, who have been promoted to the managerial cadre in between 01.01.2016 and 31.10.2018, have been provided with wage revision as per the pay commission revision @ 2.57 multiplier. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming similar relief.

¶6The main contention of the respondent transport corporation is that this writ petition is liable to be rejected on the ground of laches and that the petitioner has availed the benefits of wage settlement and therefore, he is entitled for wage revision as per the award passed by the Arbitrator @ 2.44 factor. In similar issue this court has also referred the matter to the Arbitrator and Hon'ble Mr Justice E.Padmanaban (retd) has passed an award dated 03.05.2018. The relevant paragraph of the award passed by the Arbitrator reads as under: "120. It is held that the wage scale of employees of the State Transport Undertakings have already been fixed at by 20 applying multiplier factor of 257 as a result of several consecutive revisions reached in a span of once in three years. Therefore, statutorily the claimants have already been given the benefit of multiplier factor of 2.57 by virtue of earlier three consecutive settlements as well as the latest settlement concluded on 04.01.2018 Therefore, the claimants are not entitled for any further revision of wages than concluded in terms of settlement entered on 04.01.2018. This point is accordingly answered."

¶7The Arbitrator has rejected the claim for revision of pay @ 2.57 multiplier, since the petitioners therein availed the benefits of settlement of the year 2010, 2013, 2016 and 2018. The petitioner claims that he has not availed the benefit of settlement of the year 2018. Therefore, he will not come under that category.

¶8Since this Court has already granted the relief to the similarly placed persons, who have been promoted in between 01.01.2016 to

31.10.2018, which has also been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this writ petition is allowed.

9.The petitioner herein, who has been promoted on 04.03.2017, has not availed wage revision as per wage settlement dated 04.01.2018. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the revised scale of pay at the rate of 2.57 as provided to all other Government servants vide G.O.Ms.No.

¶303In the event if the petitioner has already availed the benefit under the wage settlement of the year 2018, the same shall be recovered from the petitioner. Since the petitioner has approached this Court belatedly, he is not entitled for the interest. The revised scale of pay shall be calculated from the date of his promotion till the date of his retirement and shall be disbursed to the petitioner, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

02.02.2026 ogy Index : Yes / No. Internet: Yes / No. NCC : Yes / No. To

¶1The Principal Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶2The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., Byepass Road, Madurai.

¶3The Administrator, TNSTC Employees' Pension Fund Trust Office of the SETC Head Office Thiruvalluvar House, Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

B.PUGALENDHI, J. ogy

02.02.2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02.02.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI Ayyanar ... Petitioner Vs 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., Byepass Road, Madurai. 3. The Administrator, TNSTC Employees' Pension Fund Trust Office of the SETC Head Office Thiruvalluvar House, Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 600 002. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to re-fix the pay of the petitioner by adopting 2.57 multiplier/matrix on par with 7th pay revision from the date of promotion and other retirement benefits including pension in the light of the order passed in W.P. (MD)No.3609 of 2020 dated 20.06.2023 which was confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.(MD)No.1099 of 2024 dated 04.07.2024 within a stipulated time that may be fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Karunanidhi For R1 : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh, Additional Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.D.Jebaraj Standing Counsel For R3 : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, Standing Counsel