//
you're reading...
legal issues

SERVICE MATTER = the matter of integration or the fusion of employees, being one of policy, could not have been challenged by the employees unless the said decision was arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious.=The High Court was justified in quashing the Paras 6(iv) and (v) of the G.O.Ms. No.382. The seniority of the respondent has to be fixed in the cadre of Health Inspector Grade I by giving the benefit of service from 27th June, 1997. Further, they are eligible to be promoted on completion of 5 years service on the post of Health Inspector Grade I, though, they can be placed at the bottom of the seniority of serving Health Inspector Grade I as on 1st August, 1997. In our opinion, the High Court, in fact rightly quashed and set aside the offending clauses of 6(iv) and 6(v) of G.O. Ms. No. 382 dated 12th October, 2007.- At this stage, we may summarise the conclusions recorded by us in the following manner:- i. The integration of Leprosy Inspectors into the Department of Health and Preventive Medicine by G.O.Ms. No. 320 dated 27th June, 1997 was complete in all respects. ii. The aforesaid G.O. Ms. No. 320 dated 27th June, 1997 did not bring about an amendment in the Statutory Services Rules contained in G.O. Ms. No. 1507 dated 16th August, 1989. The G.O.Ms. was supplementary to the aforesaid Rules and did not supplant the same. iii. There was no relaxation in the educational qualification for the integration/re-designation of Leprosy Inspectors as Multi Purpose Health Supervisors as the post of Leprosy Inspector was equated with the post of Multi Purpose Health Supervisor. The qualifications prescribed for appointment on the post of Multi Purpose Health Assistants re-designated as Health Inspector Grade II were not applicable for the post of Multi Purpose Health Supervisor. iv. Since, there was a complete integration of the posts of Leprosy Inspector and Multi Purpose Health Supervisor by virtue of G.O.Ms. No. 320 dated 27th June, 1997; both categories were entitled to the same treatment. Therefore, Leprosy Inspectors re- designated as Health Inspector Grade IB were entitled to the pay-scale of Rs.1350-2000 w.e.f. 1st August, 1997 and the pay-scale of Rs.4500-7000 w.e.f. the same were given to Health Inspector Grade IA, with all consequential benefits. v. Upon integration vide G.O.Ms. No. 320 dated 27th June, 1997, Multi Purpose Health Supervisors and Leprosy Inspectors were to be re-designated as Health Inspector Grade I. The birth mark of the Leprosy Inspector got obliterated with the integration. There could be no further distinction in the cadre of Health Inspector Grade I. There could be no such division as Health Inspector Grade IA and Health Inspector Grade IB. vi. Since Paragraph 6(iv) and 6(v) of G.O.Ms. No. 382 dated 12th October, 2007 was in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, they have been correctly struck down by the High Court. vii. The denial of seniority to the re-designated Health Inspectors Grade IB, i.e., erstwhile Leprosy Inspectors on the post of Health Inspector Grade I w.e.f. 1st August, 1997 to 12th October, 2007 violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench of the High Court has correctly concluded that the integrated Leprosy Inspectors, re-designated as Health Inspector Grade IB are to be re-designated as Health Inspector Grade I and to be given seniority as well as consequential reliefs such as seniority and further promotions. viii. The provision contained in Clause 6(v) of G.O.Ms. No. 382 dated 12th October, 2007 denying promotion of the re-designated Health Inspector Grade I to the post of Block Health Supervisor and Technical Personal Assistant till the last person in the existing list of Health Inspector Grade I gets promotion as Block Health Supervisor and Technical Personal Assistant, has been rightly held by the High Court to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. ix. The continuance of the existing promotion channels as Non-Medical Supervisor and Health Educator to the re-designated Health Inspector grade I (erstwhile Leprosy Inspectors) did not amount to bestowing a double benefit upon this category. Therefore, the High Court did not enforce negative equality. The High Court has correctly observed that upon integration and merger into one cadre, the pre- existing length of service of the Leprosy Inspectors re-designated as Health Inspector Grade IB had to be protected as it can not be obliterated. Therefore, the Leprosy Inspectors have been correctly placed at the bottom of the seniority list of the already existing Health Inspectors Grade I w.e.f. 27th June, 1997. Therefore, it can not be said that benefit has been given to the Leprosy Inspectors /Health Inspector Grade IB /Health Inspector Grade I with retrospective effect.

 

English: Emblem of the State Government of Tam...

English: Emblem of the State Government of Tamil Nadu used by the state government for public notices in the press and for publicity purposes. The emblem of India is the image used on the India Wikipedia article. தமிழ்: தமிழ் நாடு அரசின் சின்னம். (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4483-4485 OF 2013
[Arising out of SLP (C) NOS.24492-24494 OF 2010]

S. Sivaguru
…Appellant
VERSUS
State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
…Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4486 OF 2013
[Arising out of SLP (C) NO.25526 OF 2010]

R. Arulraj
…Appellant
VERSUS
K. Jagannathan & Ors.
…Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4487 OF 2013
[Arising out of SLP (C) NO.25388 OF 2010]

S. Sivaguru
…Appellant
VERSUS
C. Selvaraj & Ors.
…Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4488 OF 2013
[Arising out of SLP (C) NO.25417 OF 2010]

K. Krishnamurthy
…Appellant
VERSUS
Narasimhalu & Ors.
…Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4489 OF 2013
[Arising out of SLP (C) NO.26159 OF 2010]

K.V. Srinivasan
…Appellant
VERSUS
S. Syed Ibrahim & Ors.
…Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4490 OF 2013
[Arising out of SLP (C) NO.25442 OF 2010]

B. Kumar
…Appellant
VERSUS
Venkatramanan & Ors.
…Respondents

WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4491 OF 2013
[Arising out of SLP (C) NO.566 OF 2011]

Govt. of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
…Appellants
VERSUS
Narasimhalu & Ors.
…Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4492 OF 2013
[Arising out of SLP (C) NO.4572 OF 2011]

State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
…Appellants
VERSUS
M. Padmanaban & Ors.
…Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4493 OF 2013
[Arising out of SLP (C) NO.2179 OF 2011]

State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
…Appellants
VERSUS
S. Sivaguru
…Respondent

WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4494 OF 2013
[Arising out of SLP (C) NO.2188 OF 2011]

State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
…Appellants
VERSUS
C. Selvaraj & Ors.
…Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4495 OF 2013
[Arising out of SLP (C) NO.2183 OF 2011]

Secretary to Govt. Health &
Family Welfare & Anr.
…Appellants

VERSUS
Venkatramanan & Ors.
…Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4496 OF 2013
[Arising out of SLP (C) NO.2191 OF 2011]

State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
…Appellants
VERSUS
O.M. Duraisamy & Ors.
…Respondents

WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4497 OF 2013
[Arising out of SLP (C) NO.2196 OF 2011]

State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
…Appellants
VERSUS
S. Sivaguru .
…Respondent
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4498 OF 2013
[Arising out of SLP (C) NO.2194 OF 2011]

State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
…Appellants
VERSUS
K.Jagannathan & Ors.
…Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4499 OF 2013
[Arising out of SLP (C) NO.3485 OF 2011]

State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
…Appellants
VERSUS
S.Syed Ibrahim
…Respondent

WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4500 OF 2013
[Arising out of SLP (C) NO.15221 OF 2011]

J. Murthy
…Appellant
VERSUS
Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
…Respondents

WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4501-4502 OF 2013
[Arising out of SLP (C) NOS.4710-4711 OF 2012]

K. Selvan & Ors.
…Appellants
VERSUS
State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
…Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4503-4504 OF 2013
[Arising out of SLP (C) NOS.10939-10940 OF 2012]

T. Rajaraman
…Appellant
VERSUS
Venkatramanan & Ors.
…Respondents

WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 133 OF 2012
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4498 OF 2013
[Arising out of SLP (C) NO.2194 OF 2011]

K.Jagannathan & Ors.
…Appellants
VERSUS
Mrs. Girija Vaidyanathan & Anr.
…Respondents
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 145 OF 2012
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4492 OF 2013
[Arising out of SLP (C) NO.4572 OF 2011]

M. Padmanaban & Anr.
…Appellants
VERSUS
Mrs. Girija Vaidyanathan & Anr.
…Respondents
J U D G M E N T
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR,J.
1. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.
2. These appeals are directed against the common judgment
and final order dated 23rd July, 2010 passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition Nos.
23893 of 2006, 34401 of 2007, 8339, 12654, 14592, 17578,
25844 and 27982 of 2008 and Writ Appeal No.312 of 2008
and connected misc. petitions. By this order, the High
Court dismissed the Writ Petition Nos. 23893 of 2006 and
34401 of 2007 and allowed the Writ Petition No.17578 of
2008 filed by respondents 3 to 5 and also Writ Appeal
No.312 of 2008.

3. Since the facts involved in the controversy in all the
appeals are common, we shall make a reference to the
facts as narrated by the High Court. This shall be
supplemented by any additions made by the appellants in
this Court.

4. The facts noticed by the High Court are that initially
the Health Department consisted of Multipurpose Health
Workers and Unipurpose Health Workers who were engaged
in various schemes for eradication of different diseases
which were widespread throughout India. By an order
dated 29th September, 1982,
Unipurpose Workers were integrated as Multipurpose
Health Workers. On 4th November, 1988, there was a
subsequent integration of employees engaged in the
family welfare. Soon thereafter, statutory rules were
notified under the proviso to Article 309 by the G.O.Ms.
No.1507 dated 16th August, 1989 which were made
applicable to the Multipurpose Health Workers Scheme.
Under the rules, different Class I and Class II posts
were notified and their essential qualifications were
prescribed. The essential qualification for appointment
to the post of Multipurpose Health Assistant was SSLC
and long term Multipurpose Health Worker’s Training
Course Certificate or possession of Sanitary Inspector’s
Course Certificate and short term training course
certificate from multipurpose health workers training.
It was further provided that the candidates will have to
acquire the long time training course within five years
from the date of appointment. The essential
qualifications were also prescribed for all other posts.
By an amendment dated 19th November, 1990
(G.O.No.1984), the pay scales of Multipurpose Health
Assistant were re-fixed. On 13th August, 1991, the
Health and Family Welfare Department by G.O. No.1123
prescribed the qualifications for promotions of
Multipurpose Health Supervisors as Block Health
Supervisors. Vide G.O.Ms. No.4 dated 4th January, 1993
some of the categories were added in the feeder posts of
Multipurpose Health Supervisor and Multipurpose Health
Workers. These rules were, however, applicable only to
those who joined the service under the Tamil Nadu Public
Health Services.

5. Again the Health and Family Welfare Department, through
G.O. No. 593 dated 11th September, 1995, categorized
Multipurpose Health Supervisors and Multipurpose Health
Assistants as Health Inspectors Grade I and Grade II.
The G.O. further provided that all Multipurpose Health
Assistants were to be promoted as Multipurpose Health
Supervisors provided they had served on the post for 20
years and had crossed the age of 50 years. This
relaxation was given as a one time measure by
upgradation of the post. It is pertinent to mention here
that the Multipurpose Health Assistants promoted under
this G.O. included the Unipurpose Health Workers who had
been absorbed pursuant to the integration in 1982. The
aforesaid G.O. No.593 was challenged by certain
aggrieved persons in Writ Petition Nos. 17550 of 2006
and 25608 of 2006. Prior to this, the rules were amended
on 20th December, 1995 w.e.f. 6th September, 1989 by
G.O. No.782. It was, however, made clear that the
amendment shall not adversely affect those who were
holding the post prior to 16th August, 1989.

6. The inter se dispute between the parties in the present
appeals originated when the fact of successful
eradication of leprosy by the National Leprosy
Eradication Programme (NLEP) led to the integration of
the employees working in the said Scheme into the
Multipurpose Health Workers Scheme. The integration of
the Multipurpose Health Workers Scheme with the Leprosy
Eradication Scheme took place vide G.O. Ms. No.320,
Health and Family Welfare (G-1) Department dated 27th
June, 1997. The G.O. sets out the rationale for the
integration as follows :-
“The National Leprosy Eradication Programme is in operation
in Tamil Nadu from 1955. With the introduction of the Multi
Drug Therapy (MDT) comprising these drugs. DAPSONE,
RIFAMPCIN and CLOFAZIMINE, incidence of leprosy has been
brought down considerably. Tamil Nadu has done a
commendable work in the leprosy control Programme over the
years. The prevalence of leprosy in Tamil Nadu was 118 per
10,000 in 1983 which has been reduced to 7 per 10,000. The
reduction in prevalence rate for the last two years is not
very significant. Recently, India hosted an International
Meet on Eradication of leprosy and the Prime Minister has
set a goal that the leprosy should be eradicated from India
by 2000 A.D. The IWHO has also taken similar efforts
globally. The eradication of leprosy means bringing down
the prevalence rate to 1 per 10,000.”

7. Thus, the Government of India in 1990-91 had suggested
integration of leprosy services. It was felt that in
order to sustain leprosy services at the operational
level, its integration with the public health services
will be desirable. Integration would not result in
abolition of special services. On the contrary,
specialized component will continue to be available
within the general health services at the State and
District level for planning and evaluation, provision of
training, technical supervision, advice, referral
services and research. The purpose of this integration
would be to involve the Leprosy Field Staff in Public
Health Work and Health Inspectors in the leprosy work,
so that the leprosy inspector will cover a population of
5,000 to 10,000 as against 25,000 which was being
covered at that time by the leprosy inspectors. The
Government of Tamil Nadu had also upon considering, for
quite some time, the question of integrating the leprosy
services with Multipurpose Health Workers Scheme, under
the Primary Health Care Services, constituted a
committee by the G.O.Ms. No. 1705 dated 18th December,
1996 to go into the various aspects of integration and
submit a report. The recommendations submitted by the
aforesaid Committee were examined by the Government and
accepted with some modifications.

Thus, the G.O. (Ms.) No. 320 dated 27th June, 1997 was
issued integrating Leprosy Control Scheme with Multipurpose
Health Workers Scheme. The G.O. made elaborate provisions
with regard to: (i) the administrative control of the
National Leprosy Eradication Programme, which was to be
vested with the Director of Public Health and Preventive
Medicine, who was to be responsible for the implementation
of the National Leprosy Eradication Programme activities in
the State. At the District level, the Deputy Director of
Medical Services (Leprosy) would be the in-charge of the
hospital based units and would be the Programme Officer,
assisted by Deputy Director (Health Services), and (ii) the
Salary and other components of the programme staff. It was
further provided that Salary and other components of the
programme staff under the control of Deputy Director of
Medical Services (Leprosy) will be met from the existing
allotment under Demand-18. Paragraph 4(vii) of the
aforesaid G.O. was as under:-
“The posts of Health Educator, Non Medical Supervisor and
Leprosy Inspectors re-designated as Health Inspector Grade
IB are brought under the control of Director of Public
Health and Preventive Medicine for programme
implementation. However, separate seniority shall be
maintained for these staff and the promotions of the
respective categories will continue in the existing
channals (sic).”

8. The other relevant clause would be 5(iv), which is as
under:-
“Leprosy Inspectors: The Leprosy Inspectors will be
redesignated as Health Inspector Grade IB and will be
transferred to the Directorate of Public Health and
Preventive Medicine. They will be posted to the Health Sub-
Centres covering a population of about 10,000 one for 2
Health Sub-centres or at one for 5,000 population in
problem areas. The scale of pay of this category of staff
will continue to be in the existing scale of pay of Rs.1200-
30-1560-40-2040. However, in order to protect their
present emoluments they will be allowed special allowances
of Rs. 50/- per month and the existing Health Inspector
Grade I under the control of Director of Public Health and
Preventive Medicine will be re-designated as Health
Inspector Grade IA in the Scale of pay Rs.1350-30-1440-1800-
50-2200. The Health Inspector Grade IB will attend to and
undertake various Public Health activities as per the Job
chart for Health Inspector Grade IA in Health Inspectors
Grade IA and Grade II will also attend to Leprosy Control
Work apart from their existing duties after necessary
training. The Director of Public Health and Preventive
Medicine will issue necessary further orders prescribing
revised job chart for the Health Inspector Grade IA, Health
Inspector Grade IB and Health Inspector Grade II.”

9. Similarly provision was made for absorption of
Ministerial staff in Clause 6 of the G.O. in the
following terms:-
“Ministerial Staff: One of the two sections at the State
Head quarters will be transferred to the Office of the
Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine to look
after the service matters of the Leprosy staff other than
those coming under Director of Medical and Rural Health
Services. Further one Assistant will be transferred from
the Office of the Deputy Director (Lep.) to the Deputy
Director of Health Services in the Districts. The
administrative control of the above staff will vest with
the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine. The
remaining ministerial staff sanctioned for Leprosy Control
Programme will be transferred and posted to the
institutions under the control of Director of Medical and
Rural Health Services. The establishment matters of all
the ministerial staff including the staff attached to the
Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine will,
however, continue to be with the Director of Medical and
Rural Health Services for the purpose of future promotions
in the respective categories. The salary and allowances of
the ministerial staff attached to the Director of Public
Health and Preventive Medicine will be met from the
existing budget allotment under Demand-10 Medical by
Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine. In
respect of other ministerial staff salary and other
allowances will be met by Director of Medical and Rural
Health Services from the budget allotment under Demand-18
Medical.”

10. By Clause 8, even the transportation vehicles were
transferred as under:-
“The Government direct that the 102 vehicles along with
drivers working in the Leprosy Control units shall be
transferred to the Director of Public Health and Preventive
Medicine.”

11. By Clause 10, all the Government buildings occupied by
the Government Leprosy Control Units were placed under
the control of the Director of Medical and Rural Health
Services along with the equipment and furniture for
expansion of Taluka hospitals, except in places where
the buildings were required for the office of the Deputy
Director of Health Services. Under Clause 11, the
Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine was
also directed to take immediate action to impart
necessary training to the leprosy staff in various
public health activities. Similarly, the Public Health
staff was directed to be trained in leprosy control
activities. By Clause 13, it was directed that the
integration of the Leprosy Control Programme with the
Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine will
take effect from 1st July, 1997. It appears that upon
issuance of the G.O., the merger was completed by 1st
August, 1997. It would be apparent from Clause 5(iv) of
the 1997 G.O. that the Leprosy Inspectors were
designated as Health Inspector Grade IB and transferred
to the Directorate of Public Health and Preventive
Medicine. They were to be paid according to their
existing scale of pay of Rs.1200-30-1560-40-2040. In
order to protect their present emoluments, they were
given special allowance of Rs.50/- per month. The
existing Health Inspectors Grade I under the control of
Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine were
designated as Health Inspectors Grade IA. They were in
the pay-scale of Rs.1350-30-1440-1800-50-2200. It is
also apparent that the Health Inspectors Grade IB were
to undertake various public health activities as per the
job chart for Health Inspector Grade IA. Furthermore,
Health Inspectors Grade IA and Grade II were to attend
to leprosy control work apart from their existing duties
after necessary training. Thereafter, the issue with
regard to the merger of the two categories of Health
Inspectors Grade IA and Grade IB into a single category
was to be examined at the time of the next Pay
Commission. But it appears that the issue was not
examined in the official Committee of 1998. From the
above narration, it becomes clear that there was
complete integration of the Leprosy Control Scheme with
the Multipurpose Health Scheme through the G.O.Ms. 320
dated 27th June, 1997. Also, the fact that non-
possession of Sanitary Inspector Course by the Leprosy
Inspectors was not viewed with any serious concern is
evident from the fact that the 1997 scheme was never
challenged by the appellants.

12. Thereafter, the Director of Public Health and Preventive
Medicine in his letters dated 17th February, 2006 and
15th July, 2006 set proposals for redesignation of
post of Health Inspectors Grade IB as Health Inspector
Grade I considering their length of service in the
department, without imparting any training to them. He
had suggested the aforesaid proposal for administrative
convenience. At the same time, the Public Health
Department Officials Association (Leprosy) had been
requesting the Government repeatedly for re-designating
them as Health Inspector Grade I. By letter dated 24th
January, 2006, the Government requested the Director of
Public Health and Preventive Medicine to send the
necessary detailed proposal for imparting in-service
training for a period of one week for all the Health
Inspectors Grade IB so as to re-designate them as Health
Inspectors Grade I. The proposal was also to include
detail of expenditure involved in the proposed training
and where the expenditure to be made out from the
leprosy funds.

13. At this stage, some employees filed a number of writ
petitions challenging the instructions issued in the
Government letter dated 24th January, 2006 in the High
Court of Madras. In its order dated 20th January, 2007,
in M.P. Nos. 2 and 3 of 2006 in Writ Petition No. 23893
of 2006, the High Court directed that in redesignation
made by the respondents shall be subject to the writ
petition. At the same time, the High Court dismissed
Writ Petition No. 7892 and 7893 of 2006 on 22nd March,
2006 with the observation that before any order is
passed on the proposal, the State shall consider the
objections of the petitioners therein. It appears that
Writ Petition Nos. 6250 and 6251 of 2006 had also been
filed at the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in
which a stay order had been granted on 1st August, 2006.
The stay order was, however, vacated on 27th April,
2007. At the same time, the Tamil Nadu Health Inspectors
Association had also given a representation raising
their objection for redesignation of the Health
Inspector Grade IB as Health Inspector Grade I.

14. Upon examination of the entire issue and taking into
account the necessity for the merger of the Leprosy
Control Scheme with Multipurpose Health Workers Scheme,
the Government issued a further G.O. on 12th October,
2007 accepting the proposals of the Director of Public
Health and Preventive Medicine to re-designate the
Health Inspector Grade IB as Health Inspector Grade I
for the purpose of administrative convenience and to
allow the scale of pay of Rs.4500-125-7000. The
aforesaid proposal was accepted through G.O.Ms. No. 382
dated 12th October, 2007. In this G.O., the rule
relating to the possession of the Sanitary Inspectors
Course (or) Multipurpose Health Worker (Male) Training
Course was relaxed in favour of these Health Inspectors
Grade IB to designate them as Health Inspector Grade I,
without affecting the rights of the existing Health
Inspector Grade I working in the Public Health
Department. The conditions of absorptions were
contained in Clause 6 of the aforesaid G.O. which is as
under:-
“The Government has therefore decided to accept the
proposals of the Director of Public Health and Preventive
Medicine to re-designate the Health Inspectors Grade-I(B)
as Health Inspector Grade-I for the purpose of
administrative convenience and to allow the scale of pay of
Rs.4500-125-7000. The rule relating to possession of
Sanitary Inspector Course (or) Multi Purpose Health Worker
(Male) Training Course is relaxed in favour of these Health
Inspectors Grade-I(B) to designate them as Health Inspector
Grade I, without affecting the rights of the existing
Health Inspector Grade-I working in Public Health
Department. The Government accordingly issue the following
orders:

i) The post of Health Inspector Grade-I (B) shall
hereafter be designated as Health Inspector Grade-I and the
scale of pay of Rs.4500-125-7000 be allowed to them from
the date of issue of the order.

(ii) Fixation of pay in the revised scale of pay shall be
allowed only from the date of issue of orders under FR 23
at the same stage if there is a stage or next stage if
there is no such stage. They are eligible for monetary
benefits only from the date of issue of the Government
order.

(iii) The above re-designation is subject to the
result of Writ Petition No.23893/06 pending in the High
Court of Madras and Writ Petition Nos. 6250 & 6251/06
pending before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.

(iv) These re-designated Health Inspector Grade-I will be
placed in the seniority list of Health Inspector Grade-I
below the last person of the Health Inspector Grade-I
already working in the Department. As the re-designation as
Health Inspector Grade-I is given only from the date of
issue of the order in relaxation of rule relating to
possession of sanitary inspectors course, these re-
designated Health Inspector Grade-I cannot claim seniority
now or in future in the post of Health Inspector Grade-I
from the date of their absorption in the Public Health
Department as per G.O.Ms. No. 320 Health dated:27.6.1997.

(v) The re-designated Health Inspector Grade I cannot claim
promotion to the post of Block Health Supervisor, and
Technical Personal Assistant till the last person in the
existing list of Health Inspector Grade I gets promotion as
Block Health Supervisor, and Technical Personal Assistant.
However, the existing promotion channel as Non-Medical
Supervisor and Health Educator shall be allowed to them
till their turn for promotion to the post of Block Health
Supervisor, Technical Personal Assistant, comes as per
their seniority.”

15. At this stage, the respondents, i.e., the employees of
the erstwhile Leprosy Control Scheme challenged the
Clauses No. 4 and 5 of Para 6 of the aforesaid G.O. in
Writ Petition Nos. 17578, 12654, 25844 and 27982 of
2008. Apart from the aforesaid challenge, the G.O.Ms.
No. 382 was also challenged by the present appellant in
Writ Petition No. 34401 of 2007.

16. It would be appropriate to notice here that the
Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.(Ms.) No. 73 dated
28th February, 2008, whereby the Director of Public
Health and Preventive Medicine was permitted to
implement the orders of the High Court dated 21st
November, 2007, wherein it was decided that only those
Health Inspectors Grade I who had the Sanitary Inspector
Course Certificate were entitled to be considered for
promotion to the next post of Block Health Supervisor.

17. At the same time, the laboratory assistants, who were
promoted as Health Inspectors Grade I; and the directly
recruited Multipurpose Health Assistants, who were
promoted as Health Inspectors Grade I filed a batch of
writ petitions viz. Writ Petition Nos. 2249, 10807,
17550 and 25608 of 2006 and 8987, 8988 and 9185 of 2007
with a prayer to restrain the department from drawing
the panel for the post of Block Health Supervisor by
including the names of Health Inspectors Grade I, who
did not possess either Sanitary Inspector Course
Certificate or Multipurpose Health Course Certificate.
It is pertinent to note here that the Unipurpose Health
Workers who got absorbed into Multipurpose Health Scheme
in 1988 and were made Health Inspectors Grade I in 1999
did not possess the aforesaid certificates and this very
fact was the grievance made against the said Unipurpose
Health Workers. The petitioners in the aforesaid bunch
of writ petitions were in possession of the said
certificates. It was their case that since Unipurpose
Health Workers were promoted as Health Inspectors Grade
I as a one time measure after completing 20 years of
services, they were not entitled to further promotion on
the post of Block Health Supervisor. Their promotion
was, therefore, sought to be challenged on the twin
grounds that : (i) they did not possess the necessary
certificate and (ii) they were already recipients of the
benevolence of the Government in that they had been
given promotion as Health Inspectors Grade I as a one
time measure. A Single Judge of the High Court allowed
the aforesaid Writ Petition on 21st November, 2007
accepting both the grounds raised in the writ petition.
As noticed above, the Government accepted and
implemented the aforesaid order of the learned Single
Judge, through G.O.Ms. No. 73 dated 28th February, 2008.
The aforesaid G.O. now prompted the Health Inspector
Grade I (Erstwhile Unipurpose Health Workers), who were
not in possession of the required certificate to
challenge the same. They filed Writ Petition No. 8339
and 1459 of 2008 with a prayer for quashing the
aforesaid G.O.Ms. No. 73. The same category also filed
Writ Appeal No. 312 of 2008 challenging the order dated
21st November, 2007, passed by the Learned Single Judge,
which had been implemented by the Government by issuing
G.O.Ms. No. 73 of 28th February, 2008. All these
matters were taken up for consideration by the Division
Bench of the Madras High Court and decided vide judgment
dated 23rd July, 2010. The aforesaid judgment has been
challenged in the following Civil Appeals:-
Civil Appeal No.4491of 2013 arising out of SLP (C)
No. 566 of 2011, Civil Appeal No. 4492 of 2013
arising out of SLP (C) No. 4572 of 2011, Civil Appeal
No.4493 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 2179 of
2011, Civil Appeal No.4495 of 2013 arising out of
SLP (C) No. 2183 of 2011, Civil Appeal No.4494 of
2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 2188 of 2011, Civil
Appeal No.4496 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C)
No. 2191 of 2011, Civil Appeal No.4498 of 2013
arising out of SLP (C) No. 2194 of 2011, Civil Appeal
No.4497 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 2196 of
2011, Civil Appeal No.4499 of 2013 arising out of
SLP (C) No. 3485 of 2011, Civil Appeal No.4483 of
2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 24492 of 2010, Civil
Appeal No.4484 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C)
No. 24493 of 2010, Civil Appeal No.4485 of 2013
arising out of SLP (C) No. 24494 of 2010, Civil
Appeal No.4487 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No.
25388 of 2010 and the connected appeals being Civil
Appeal No.4486 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No.
25226 of 2010, Civil Appeal No.4488 of 2013 arising
out of SLP (C) No. 25417 of 2010, Civil Appeal
No.4489 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 26159 of
2010, Civil Appeal No.4490 of 2013 arising out of SLP
(C) No. 25442 of 2010, Civil Appeal No.4500 of 2013
arising out of SLP (C) No. 15221 of 2011, Civil
Appeal No.4501-4502 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C)
No. 4710-4711 of 2012 and Civil Appeal No.4503-4504
of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 10939-10940 of
2012.

18. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High
Court has held that even though Unipurpose Health
Workers had been given a concession of one time
promotion, it would not act as an embargo on their
subsequent promotion. Furthermore, the requirement of
possession of certificate was waived only for absorption
of Unipurpose Health Workers as Multipurpose Health
Assistants. Thereafter, G.O.Ms. No. 4 dated 4th
January, 1993 provided that the requirement of 5 years
service as Basic Health Workers, Vaccinators, Cholera
Workers in the Tamil Nadu Public Health Subordinate
Service was sufficient for promotion to the post of
Health Inspector Grade I. Similarly, 5 year’s service
in the post of Health Inspector Grade I was sufficient
for promotion as Block Health Supervisor. The High Court
emphasised that Rule nowhere contemplates that Health
Inspector Grade I, who did not possess the required
certificate could not be promoted as Block Health
Supervisor. The only requirement of the Rule was that
for promotion as Block Health Supervisor, the candidate
shall have 5 year’s service as Health Inspector Grade I.
Consequently, the judgment of the learned Single Judge
was set aside and G.O.Ms. No. 73 dated 28th February,
2008 was quashed. It was made clear that those Health
Inspector Grade I who were not in possession of the
Sanitary Inspector Course Certificate or Multipurpose
Health Workers training Course Certificate are eligible
for promotion to the post of Block Health Supervisor
from the date on which their juniors were promoted with
all benefits.

19. The Division Bench thereafter turned its attention to
the main controversy between Health Inspector Grade I,
who had been re-designated as Health Inspector Grade IA
and Leprosy Inspectors, who had been re-designated as
Health Inspectors Grade IB. The High Court has accepted
the claim of the respondents that their absorption as
Health Inspector Grade I had to be given effect to
w.e.f. 1st August, 1997. The aforesaid conclusion of
the High Court is based upon the rationale that upon
integration, the nature of duties and responsibilities
performed by Health Inspector Grade IA and Grade IB were
one and the same. The fact that Grade IA was enjoying a
higher scale of pay than the pay-scale of Inspector
Grade IB was of no relevance, for the purpose of
equivalence of Posts. Whilst allowing the claim of the
respondents and accepting that they have been absorbed
as Health Inspector Grade I w.e.f. 1st August, 1997, the
High Court, however, directed that they would be placed
at the bottom of the seniority of serving Health
Inspectors Grade I as on 1st
August, 1997. Consequently, the Writ Petitions Nos.
8339, 12654, 14592, 17578, 25844 and 27982 of 2008 and
the writ appeal in W.A.No.312 of 2008 were allowed.
However, Writ Petition Nos. 23893 of 2006 and 34401 of
2007 were dismissed.

20. We have heard the counsel for the parties at great
length.

21. The first submission of Mr. P.P. Rao, the learned senior
counsel on behalf of the petitioner, is that the
executive instructions cannot supplant statutory rules
and for the redesignation of Health Inspectors Grade IB
as Health Inspectors Grade I an amendment in the
relevant statutory rules was necessary. He relies upon
Sant Ram Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.[1] in
support of this submission. This submission has been
reiterated by all the counsel for the appellants. Mr. S.
Gomathinayagam, relies upon the case of Prafulla Kumar
Das & Ors. Vs. State of Orissa & Ors.[2], Pradip
Chandra Parija & Ors. Vs. Pramod Chandra Patnaik &
Ors.[3], Uday Pratap Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar &
Ors.[4] and D.N. Sinha & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.
[Civil Appeal No. 3671 of 1988].

22. The second contention of Mr. P.P. Rao is that the
academic qualifications prescribed for a post cannot be
relaxed and the length of experience cannot be a
substitute for educational qualifications prescribed
(Relies on: Syed Khalid Rizvi & Ors. Vs. Union of India
& Ors.[5]; Suraj Prakash Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of J & K
& Ors.[6]; R.S. Garg Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.[7];
Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi (3) &
Ors.[8] and State of M.P. & Anr. Vs. Dharam Bir[9]).
Thus, it has been pointed out that relaxation given
firstly vide G.O.Ms. No. 593 dated 11th September, 1995;
and then vide G.O. (Ms.) No. 382 dated 12th October,
2007 with regard to the qualification of Sanitary
Inspector Course or Multipurpose Health Worker (Male) is
in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
of India. It is also pointed out that the relaxation
amounts to treating un-equals as equals. This submission
was reiterated by Mr. S. Gomathinayagam. The learned
Addl. Advocate General placed reliance upon Haryana
State Electricity Board & Anr. Vs. Gulshan Lal &
Ors.[10]

23. The learned counsel further pointed out that any such
relaxation, even if valid, can only be prospective in
application from the said order. However, the Division
Bench of the High Court has given retrospective effect
to G.O. No. 382 dated 12th October,
2007. Thus, the impugned judgment/order has in fact
added to the illegal benefit given to the respondents by
the aforesaid G.O. No.382. They have placed reliance
upon the case of Nani Sha & Ors. Vs. State of Arunachal
Pradesh & Ors.[11] In addition, it is submitted that
the Sanitary Inspector Course is still available and
that it is required for promotion to the post of Block
Heath Supervisor.

24. All the learned counsel have reiterated the submissions
of Mr. P.P. Rao that Court would not enforce negative
equality. In support of this submission they relied
upon Gurdeep Singh Vs. State of J & K & Ors.[12];
Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur Vs.
Daulat Mal Jain & Ors.[13]; Gursharan Singh & Ors. Vs.
New Delhi Municipal Committee & Ors.[14]; and Shanti
Sports Club & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.[15]

25. Mr. Rao, Mr. Giri, Mr. Ganguly, learned senior counsel;
Mr. Poongkuntran, Ms. Mohanna and
Mr. S. Gomathinayagam, learned
counsel, have submitted that no merger between the
Health Inspector Grade IB and Health Inspectors Grade I
can be considered to have had taken place. The fact that
a clear distinction was maintained with regard to the
said posts even after 1997 would show the lack of any
merger. Further, it cannot be overlooked that Leprosy
Service was not abolished. Also, the very fact that
separate seniority channel of promotion for the Leprosy
Inspectors re-designated as Health Inspectors Grade IB
was maintained, would show that there was no merger.
Mr. S. Gomathinayagam further points
out that the High Court’s order has resulted in giving
double promotion to the said Leprosy Inspectors on the
basis of G.O.Ms. No. 382 dated 12.10.2007. Mr. Ganguly,
learned senior counsel, has relied upon Sanjay Kumar
Manjul Vs. Chairman, UPSC & Ors.[16] Besides, Mr. Giri,
learned senior counsel, has relied upon the case of R.K.
Sethi & Anr. Vs. Oil & Natural Gas Commission & Ors.[17]
in support of the submission that there is no valid
merger in the present case.

26. Premising her contentions on the aforesaid submissions,
Ms. Mohanna, learned counsel, pointed out that the
G.O.(Ms.) No. 320 dated 27th June, 1997 which culminated
in effectuating the second integration was never
challenged by the Health Inspectors Grade IB, though
they claimed that the duties being performed by them are
similar to Health Inspectors Grade I. This, according to
her, cannot be the ground for equating the post of
Health Inspectors Grade IB with that of Health
Inspectors Grade I. Thus, the judgment of the High Court
is not correct insofar it has equated the aforesaid two
posts. It has also been argued by the learned Addl.
Advocate General that the latter G.O.Ms. No. 382 was a
consequential order based on earlier G.O. No.
320 and, therefore, writ petitioner(s) did not have any
locus standi to challenge the consequential order.
Reliance has been placed upon the case of Laxmi Rattan
Cotton Mills Limited. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh &
Ors.[18]

27. Another submission is that the High Court wrongly
confused and intermingled the controversy relating to
promotions of employees involved in the first
integration with that of second integration. In this
context, it was pointed out that the resolution of the
issue relating to promotion under the G.O.Ms. No. 593
dated 11th September, 1995 of employees who initially
joined after 1989 as the Multipurpose Health Assistants
from various Unipurpose Schemes have no relevance to the
controversy relating to the Leprosy Inspectors re-
designated as Health Inspector Grade IB, since both of
the said posts are borne on separate and distinct
cadres. It was also submitted that while allowing the
Writ Appeal No. 312 of 2008 which was filed by the
employees who were initially working as Unipurpose
Inspectors, the High Court did not go into the merits
thereof. Furthermore, the benefit given to the employees
under the said writ appeal was wrongly extended to the
Leprosy Inspectors re-designated as Health Inspectors
Grade IB. Reliance has been placed by
Mr. S. Gomathinayagam, in this context,
upon the cases of T. Venkateswarulu Vs. Executive
Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams & Ors.[19] and
Ghulam Rasool Lone Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir &
Anr.[20]

28. Mr. Rao also submitted that the absorbed employees are
not entitled to count previous service in the earlier
grade for the purpose of seniority in the new cadre.
Reliance has been placed upon; K.C. Gupta & Ors. Vs. Lt.
Governor of Delhi & Ors.[21]; SK. Abdul Rashid & Ors.
Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors.[22]; and Govind
Prasad Vs. R.G. Parsad & Ors.[23]

29. In reply, Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for
the respondents, submits that the integration of Leprosy
Inspectors into the Department of Heath and Preventive
Medicine which took place vide G.O.(Ms.)No. 320
dated 27th June, 1997, was complete in all
respects. According to him, this becomes clear from the
detailed instructions contained in the said G.O. The
same submissions have been reiterated by Mrs. Nalini
Chidambram, learned senior counsel. Both learned senior
counsel submitted that a policy decision to merge two or
more posts, cadres or services can be made
implemented/enforced through an executive
order/instructions as long as the executive order/or
instructions do not run counter to the Rules. [Reliance
for this submission was placed upon Indian Airlines
Officers’ Assn. Vs. Indian Airlines Ltd. & Ors.[24] and
Vinay Kumar Verma & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.[25]
Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel, has pointed
out that the G.O. through which the integration and
merger has been ordered are in the nature of executive
instructions. These instructions have not supplanted the
statutory rules and are within the ratio of Sant Ram
Sharma (supra) and Dhananjay Malik & Ors. Vs. State of
Uttaranchal & Ors.[26]

30. The next submission of Mr. Patwalia, which is reiterated
by the other learned senior counsel for the respondents,
is that since the second integration was complete in all
respects, the Leprosy Inspectors cannot be discriminated
against in consideration of their eligibility for
further promotion to the post of Block Health
Supervisor, on the ground of initial recruitment. In
other words, it has been argued that the “birthmark
disappears after integration into a single class or
cadre.” In this behalf, reliance has been placed upon:
B. Manmad Reddy & Ors. Vs. Chandra Prakash Reddy &
Ors.[27]; S.L. Sachdev & Anr. Vs. Union of India &
Ors.[28]; General Manager, South Central Railway,
Secunderabad & Anr. Vs. V.R. Siddhantti & Ors.[29]; and
State of Mysore Vs. M.H. Krishna Murthy & Ors.[30]

31. It has been also argued by Mr. Patwalia that it needs to
be appreciated that G.O. No. 382 dated 12th October,
2007 is in the nature of a clarification as it clarifies
what ought to have been done in G.O. No. 320 dated 27th
June, 1997. He has emphasised that since
the G.O. No. 320 did not re-designate the
Leprosy Inspectors as Health Inspectors Grade I in 1997,
the 2007 order ‘sets the mistake right’ of the State
Government. He points out that the 2007 G.O. itself
speaks of the reasons for rectifying the mistakes
committed in the 1997 order. Thus, the G.O. of 2007
merely reinforces the integration of 1997. In this
respect, Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel, has
gone even further and submitted that even if it has to
be assumed that the merger of the cadres took place
effectively only on the passing of G.O.Ms. No. 382 dated
12th October, 2007, the High Court was correct in
concluding that Leprosy Inspectors re-designated as
Health Inspectors Grade IB would be entitled to the
benefit of their service in the post of Health Inspector
Grade IB since 1997. Relying upon the law laid in K.
Madhavan & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.[31]; R.S.
Makashi & Ors. Vs. I.M. Menon & Ors.[32]; Wing Commander
J. Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.[33] and Sub-Inspector
Rooplal & Anr. Vs. Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary,
Delhi & Ors.[34]; it has been contended that where
persons from different sources are merged into one
service, their pre-existing total length of service in
the parent department has to be protected. Their
previous service cannot be obliterated upon
integration/merger.

32. Thus, it has been contented that the High Court has
rightly given the benefit to the Leprosy Inspectors
retrospectively from the date of second integration and
correctly placed them at the bottom of the seniority
list of the already existing Health Inspectors Grade I,
with effect from 27th June, 1997.

33. Mr. Patwalia has further submitted that the insistence
for qualification (Sanitary Inspector Course) for entry
level/feeder post-Health Inspector Grade II for re-
designation of Leprosy Inspectors as Health Inspector
Grade I in 2007 is misplaced since the State Government
has passed a reasoned order to this effect, after
considering the report of the Special Committee
constituted for integration. He further submitted that
the argument of the appellants that since education
qualifications are different, nature of duties are
different, there cannot be any integration, has been
specifically rejected in the Indian Airlines Officers’
Assn. case (supra). Similarly, the argument that the
absorption must be from the entry level in the new cadre
was also rejected in the aforesaid case. Further, since
the Sanitary Inspector Course has long been
discontinued, it would be an impossible condition to
fulfill.

34. We may also notice here that the submission of
Mrs. Nalini Chidambram, learned senior counsel,
that since Rule 5 of Notification III under G.O.Ms. No.
1507 dated 16th August, 1989 does not
mention the Sanitary Inspector Course as a sine quo non
for the post of Block Health Supervisor, the argument of
the appellants that possession of such a course is
necessary is unfounded. She has further submitted that
the State Government is estopped from raising such an
objection in this Court since before the High Court, it
was admitted by the State that Sanitary Inspector Course
is not required to get designated as Health Inspectors
Grade I.

35. All the learned counsel for the respondents emphasised
that equity is in the favour of the respondents. It
needs to be appreciated, according to them, that Leprosy
Inspectors have lost the entire service from 1979-1989
till 1997. Also, that the State Government’s stand
before this Court is contradictory to that before the
High Court, which is not permissible in view of the law
laid down in Hari Bansh Lal Vs. Sahodar Prasad Mahto &
Ors.[35]

36. Besides, Mrs. Nalini Chidambram, learned senior counsel,
has submitted that the Health Inspectors Grade I who
were working as Health Inspectors Grade II before the
second integration never challenged the said integration
and therefore, they are estopped from contending that
they should be ranked senior to Health Inspectors Grade
IB.

37. Mr. Jaideep Gupta further submitted that the question of
equation of posts does not depend merely on the fact
that both posts were in same or similar pay scales.
There are a number of other factors, namely, nature of
duties, responsibilities, minimum qualification, etc,
which have to be considered as a whole. In support of
this submission, he relied on Union of India & Anr. Vs.
P.K. Roy & Ors.[36]

38. We have given considerable thought to the very elaborate
submissions made by the learned senior counsel and the
other counsel for all the parties. The qualifications
prescribed under the aforesaid rules for the basic post
of Health Inspector Grade II, were: (a) SSLC Pass
Certificate; (b) One year long term Multi Purpose
Health Worker (Male) Training Certificate; or (c)
Sanitary Course Certificate with Short Term Multi
Purpose Health Worker (Male) Training Certificate. The
aforesaid provision contained in the Rules framed under
Article 309 of the Constitution of India could not be
amended by executive instructions. We have no
hesitation in accepting the first submission of Mr. Rao
that the executive instructions can not supplant the
statutory rules, in view of the ratio of law laid down
in the case of Sant Ram Sharma (supra). The
aforesaid ratio has been reiterated by this Court on
numerous occasions. It is not necessary to make a
reference to any of the subsequent decisions as it would
be a mere repetition of the accepted ratio, noticed
above. We are, however, of the opinion that the ratio
of law laid down in Sant Ram Sharma’s case (supra) would
not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of this
case. The qualification of having passed the one year
long term Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male) Training
Certificate or Sanitary Course Certificate with short
term Multi Purpose Health Workers (Male) Training
Certificate are the statutory requirements for
recruitment and appointment on the post of Health
Inspector Grade II. These qualifications would,
therefore, be possessed by some of the incumbents on the
promotional post of Health Inspector Grade II being
Multi Purpose Health Supervisor/ Health Inspector Grade
I as well. It is a matter of record that even in the
cadre of Health Inspector Grade II, there were many
incumbents who did not possess these qualifications.
There was a category of employees i.e., the direct
recruit Health Inspectors Grade II who possessed the
aforesaid qualifications. There was the other category
i.e. Unipurpose Health Workers consisting of Health
Workers, Cholera Workers and Vaccinators, who had
entered the cadre of Health Inspector Grade II without
such qualifications. The requirement for having the
aforesaid qualifications on the post of Health Inspector
Grade II was waived by way of order G.O. Ms. No. 1936
dated 29th September, 1982. Thus,
it is evident that the possession of the two aforesaid
qualifications was no longer considered a requirement
for appointment on the post of Health Inspector Grade
II. It is also a matter of record that the possession
of the aforesaid qualifications was not prescribed for
promotion to the post of Multi Purpose Health
Supervisor/Health Inspector Grade I. Notification III
issued under G.O.Ms. No. 1507 dated 16th August, 1989
provides for the following rules applicable to the post
of Multi Purpose Health Supervisor that :-

|2. |Constitution |The post shall constitute a distinct |
| | |category in Class -I of the said |
| | |service. |
|3. |Appointment:- |Appointment to the post shall be made|
| | |by promotion from the post of Multi |
| | |Purpose Health Assistant under the |
| | |Multi Purpose Health Workers Scheme. |
|4. |Appointment |The appointment authority for the |
| |Authority:- |post shall be the Deputy Director of |
| | |Public Health and Preventive medicine|
|5. |Qualification: |Experience for a period of not less |
| | |then five years in the category of |
| | |Multi Purpose Health Assistant under |
| | |the Multi Purpose Health Workers |
| | |Scheme. |

39. By virtue of the aforesaid provisions, many Health
Inspectors Grade II had been promoted as Health
Inspectors Grade I, without possessing the aforesaid
qualifications. It is also noteworthy, as admitted by
the State Government, that the Sanitary Inspector Course
was rescinded much prior to the issuance of the G.O. Ms.
No. 320 dated 27th June, 1997, thus there was no
opportunity for the Leprosy Inspectors to qualify for
the aforesaid Certificate. Yet the aforesaid G.O.
provided that since the Leprosy Inspectors do not
possess the aforesaid qualifications, they shall be
designated as Health Inspector Grade IB on integration
with the post of Multi Purpose Health Supervisor /
Health Inspector Grade I. In view of the aforesaid
developments, Leprosy Inspectors were fully eligible to
be re-designated as Multi Purpose Health Supervisor /
Health Inspector Grade I. It was wholly unnecessary,
unjustified and unfair to re-designate the Multi Purpose
Health Supervisors as Health Inspectors Grade IA and
Health Inspectors Grade IB.

40. From the above, it becomes apparent that the G.O.Ms. No.
320 dated 27th June, 1997 did not have the effect of
amending the rules. It is also clear that the aforesaid
G.O. did not supplant the statutory provisions. It is
also further clear that there was no relaxation of the
qualifications on the post of Multi Purpose Health
Assistant (Health Inspector Grade II) or on the post of
Multi Purpose Health Supervisor (Health Inspector Grade
I). Therefore, in our opinion, upon integration of
Leprosy Inspectors into the cadre of Multi Purpose
Health Supervisors, the further categorization into
Health Inspector Grade IA and Health Inspector Grade IB
was wholly unjustified. It had no rational nexus with
any object sought to be achieved, and therefore,
violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India.

41. We may notice here that under the G.O.Ms. No. 320 dated
27th June, 1997, Clause 7 had provided that the post of
Health Educator, Non-Medical Supervisor and Leprosy
Inspectors (re-designated as Health Inspector Grade IB)
were brought under the control of Director of Public
Health and Preventive Medicine. However, separate
seniority was to be maintained for the aforesaid staff
and the promotions of the respective categories will
continue in the existing channel. Therefore, till the
issuance of G.O.Ms. No. 382 dated 12th
October, 2007, Leprosy Inspectors continued to be
promoted on the next higher post of Non-Medical
Supervisor and Health Educator. It is noteworthy that
the aforesaid G.O. Ms. No. 320 was not challenged and
Leprosy Inspectors were being promoted under separate
channels of promotion. Thus, it is evident that till
the issuance of the G.O. Ms. No. 382 of 2007,
Health Inspector Grade IA, who had been promoted from
the post /category of Health Inspector Grade I, had no
grievance with the integration through G.O.Ms.
No. 320 dated 27th June, 1997.

42. In view of our above conclusions, we are unable to
accept the third submission of Mr. P.P. Rao and the
other learned counsel that there has been any relaxation
with regard to qualification of Sanitary Inspector
Course or Multi Purpose Health Workers (Male) Training
Certificate in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. As noticed earlier by G.O. Ms.
No. 593 dated 11th September, 1995 did not, in any
manner, concern the Leprosy Inspectors. The aforesaid
G.O. was only issued for implementation of the G.O. Ms.
No. 1936, Health and Family Welfare dated
29th September, 1982, with effect from 4th November,
1988 which was implemented through G.O. Ms. No. 1507
dated 16th August, 1989. The aforesaid relaxation was
given to remove stagnation to Multi Purpose Health
Assistants, who were not able to get any promotion even
after crossing the age of 50 years or having rendered 20
years of service. It was specifically noticed in G.O.
Ms. No. 593 dated 11th September, 1995 that possession
of the Multi Purpose Health Workers (Male) Training
Certificate and Sanitary Course Certificate with short
term Multi Purpose Health Workers (Male) Training
Certificate was not a precondition for absorption of
Basic Health Workers, Vaccinators, Cholera Workers as
Multi Purpose Health Assistants. Therefore, at the time
when G.O. Ms. No. 320 was issued, the aforesaid
qualifications were not acquired. Even if required, the
same had been duly relaxed. Therefore, it would also
not be possible to accept the submission of Mr. Rao that
the relaxation given to the Leprosy Inspectors was
either arbitrary or discriminatory. The State was
within its powers to relax the aforesaid qualification
in exercise of its powers of the Tamil Nadu State and
Subordinate Services Rules, 1955. Rule 48 of the
aforesaid rules provides as under:-
“48. Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or
in the special rules, the Governor shall have power to deal
with the case of any person or class of persons serving in
a civil capacity under the Government of Tamil Nadu or of
any person who has or of any class of persons who have
served as aforesaid or any candidate or class of candidates
for appointment to a service in such manner as may appear
to him to be just and equitable:

Provided that, where any such rule is applicable to the
case of any person or class of persons, the case shall not
be dealt with in any manner less favourable to him or them
than that provided by that rule.”

43. Therefore, the provision contained with regard to any
relaxation given to any of the categories under G.O. Ms.
No. 320 dated 27th June, 1997 and under G.O.
Ms. No. 382 dated 12th October, 2007 being traceable to
the power under Rule 48 of the 1955 Rules can not be
said to be without any legal authority or jurisdiction.
We, therefore, reject the aforesaid submission of the
counsel for the petitioners also. We are of the opinion
that in fact injustice had been caused to the Leprosy
Inspectors at the time when G.O. Ms. No. 320 dated 27th
June, 1997 was issued, which has been rectified by
issuing G.O. Ms. No. 382 dated 12th October, 2007.
As noticed above, the qualification of Multi Purpose
Health Worker (Male) Training Certificate, the
qualification of Sanitary Course Certificate with Short
term Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male) Training
Certificate were not the required qualification for
appointment as Multi Purpose Health Supervisors. These
were also not the qualifications which were required for
being appointed as a Leprosy Inspector. However, even
though by the 1997 integration through G.O. Ms. No. 320
dated 27th June, 1997, the Leprosy Inspectors were
equated with Multi Purpose Health Supervisors, both
categories were not given the same designation. The
Multi Purpose Health Supervisors were designated as
Health Inspector Grade IA, while Leprosy Inspectors were
designated as Health Inspector Grade IB. The aforesaid
categorization of Leprosy Inspectors as Health Inspector
Grade IB was founded on a fallacy. It was wrongly
assumed by the State that Leprosy Inspectors could not
be designated as Multi Purpose Health Supervisors as
they did not possess the necessary qualification for the
basic post of Health Assistants, i.e., Health Inspector
Grade II. The mere fact that Leprosy Inspectors were
not placed in the feeder cadre of Health Inspector Grade
II makes it evident that they were not required to
possess the qualifications of the basic posts. They
were in fact from the very inception being equated with
the post of Multi Purpose Health Supervisor (Health
Inspector Grade I). It was not a case of upgradation of
the post of Leprosy Inspector to the post of Multi
Purpose Health Supervisor. The two posts were equated.
Leprosy Inspectors were transferred and brought under
the control of Director of Public Health and Preventive
Medicine for programme implementation. On transfer, they
were re-designated as Health Inspector Grade IB. Inspite
of the fact that the aforesaid two qualifications of one
year long term Multi Purpose Health Workers (Male)
Training Certificate and Sanitary Course Certificate
with short term Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male)
Training Certificate were not the essential
qualifications for appointment as Health Inspector Grade
I, the post of Health Inspector Grade I was
unnecessarily split into Health Inspector Grade IA and
Grade IB.

44. Learned counsel for the petitioner had also submitted
that relaxation even if valid can only be prospective in
its application. The aforesaid proposition of law also
would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances
of this case. We are of the opinion that injustice
had been done to the Leprosy Inspectors at the time of
the 1997 merger/integration. In spite of a complete
merger, G.O.Ms. No.320 dated 27th June, 1997 still
provided in Paragraph 4 of Clause 7 of the G.O. that the
incumbents of the post of Health Inspector Grade IB,
although brought under the control of Director of Public
Health and Preventive Medicine for programme
implementation shall be placed in a separate seniority
list, and the promotions of the respective categories
will continue in the existing channels. Although
Inspectors Grade IB were placed in a lower pay scale,
they were to attend various Public Health activities as
per the job chart for Health Inspector Grade IA, in
addition to Leprosy Control Programme. Similarly, Health
Inspector Grade IA and Grade II were to attend the
Leprosy Control Work apart from their existing duties
after necessary training. It was made clear that the
Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine will
issue necessary further orders prescribing revised job
chart for the Health Inspector Grade IA, Health
Inspector Grade IB and Health Inspector Grade II.
Therefore, it seems apparent that there was complete
integration of Leprosy Control Scheme with Multi Purpose
Health Workers Scheme with effect from 1st July, 1997
and the process of integration was actually completed by
1st August, 1997. As held in the case of P. K. Roy
(supra), an issue concerning the posts has to be
considered from a broader prospective, and it does not
depend merely on the salary of the employees. Broadly
speaking, the relevant factors could be: (i) the nature
and duties of a post, (ii) the responsibilities and
powers exercised by the officer holding a post; the
extent of territorial or other charge held or
responsibilities discharged; (iii) the minimum
qualifications, if any, prescribed for recruitment to
the post; and (iv) the salary of the post. Further, it
was also held in the aforesaid case that “if the earlier
three criteria mentioned above are fulfilled then the
fact that the salaries of the two posts are different,
would not in any way make the post ‘not equivalent’.”
Since the post of Health Inspector Grade IB was for all
practical purposes equal to Health Inspector Grade IA,
there was no legal justification to continue the
disparity in the pay scales of Health Inspector Grade IA
and Health Inspector Grade IB. The High Court,
therefore, rightly gave the benefit of equation of post
of Health Inspector Grade -IB with that that of Health
Inspector Grade IA from the date of their integration,
in 1997.

45. Having accepted the complete merger of the cadre of
Health Inspector Grade IB with Health Inspector Grade IA
and all being re-designated as Health Inspector Grade I,
G.O.(Ms.) No. 382 of 2007 failed to achieve the intended
result. It still discriminated against the erstwhile
Health Inspector Grade IB, by robbing them of service
from 1997 to 2007. They were given the pay scale of
Rs.4500-125-7000 but from the date of the G.O.(Ms.) No.
382 of 2007 i.e. 12th October, 2007.
Further, they were placed en bloc at the bottom of the
seniority list of Health Inspector Grade I. This denial
of seniority was justified on the ground that “as the
redesignation of Health Inspector Grade I is given only
from the date of the issue of the order in relaxation of
rule relating to possession of Sanitary Inspector
Course, they can not claim0 the benefit of service since
integration on 27th June, 1997.” The re-designated
Health Inspector Grade I were also denied promotion on
the post of Block Health Supervisor and Technical
Personal Assistant till the last person in the category
of Health Inspector Grade I is promoted as Block Health
Supervisor. They were given the alternate route of
promotion as Non-Medical Supervisor and Health Educator,
till their turn comes for promotion, as per their
seniority.

46. Upon merger of the two posts, it was no longer
permissible to treat the re-designated Health Inspector
Grade IA differently from Health Inspector Grade IB.
Since 1997, all incumbents on the posts of Health
Inspector Grade IA and Health Inspector Grade IB were
performing the same duties. There was intermixing of the
duties performed by the two categories of the Health
Inspector Grade IA and IB. Both the posts had lost their
original identity since 27th June, 1997, and formed one
homogenous cadre. Further, having relaxed the
qualifications on the basis of their length of service
and experience, they were at par with the Health
Inspector Grade IA. Thereafter, the State was
not justified in denying to the erstwhile Health
Inspector Grade IB, the same treatment as was given to
Health Inspector Grade IA. Therefore,0 the respondents
could not have been denied the benefit of service on the
post of Health Inspector Grade I from the date of the
initial integration. It would be appropriate to notice
the ratio of law laid down in the case of Sub-Inspector
Rooplal (supra), wherein it was inter-alia held that the
previous service of the transferred officials who are
absorbed in an equivalent cadre in the transferred post
is permitted to be counted for the purpose of
determination of seniority. It would be appropriate to
notice here that Leprosy Inspectors re-designated as
Health Inspector Grade IB have not been granted the
benefit of seniority in their cadre from the date of
their initial appointment. They have been deprived of
their service on the post of Leprosy Inspector upto 27th
June, 1997 when they were integrated and re-designated
as Health Inspector Grade IB. However, upon merger
w.e.f. 27th June, 1997, there was no distinction in the
services rendered by Health Inspector Grade IA and
Health Inspector Grade IB. Therefore, in our opinion,
the provision in G.O. (MS) No. 382 of 2007 not to grant
the Health Inspectors Grade IB/erstwhile Leprosy
Inspectors the benefit of the service from 1997 for
determination of their seniority for promotion to the
post of Block Health Supervisor was completely
unjustified.

47. Thus, the High Court, in our opinion, was completely
justified in quashing Para 6(iv) and (v) of the
G.O.(Ms.) No. 382 of 2007. The High Court has
correctly held that the re-designated Health Inspector
Grade I ought to have been given the same scale of pay
as Health Inspector Grade IA from the date of the
merger. In fact, on that date itself, the two posts
should have been re-designated as Health Inspector Grade
I, enjoying the same scale of pay, as all incumbents
were performing the same duties and shouldering the same
responsibilities. It was not permissible for the State
to treat the re-designated Health Inspector Grade I
differently from the Health Inspector Grade IA, on the
basis of the initial source of recruitment.

48. The birth mark was obliterated on the merger of the post
of Leprosy Inspector with Health Inspector Grade I.
There was no justification of putting Health Inspector
Grade IB in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2010, whilst Health
Inspector Grade IA was placed in the pay scale of
Rs.1350-2200. At the time of integration, both
categories had to be given the same pay scale i.e.
Rs.1350-2200. In this respect, the principle of law laid
down by this Court, time and again, is that a
classification based on the birth mark that stood
obliterated after integration of officers, coming from
different sources into a common cadre/category, would be
wholly unjustified and discriminatory. This principle
was relied upon by this Court in the case of B. Manmad
Reddy (supra), wherein this court reiterated the
observations of this Court in Paragraph 5 of Roshan Lal
Tandon Vs. Union of India[37]:
“In our opinion, the constitutional objection taken by the
petitioner to this part of the notification is well founded
and must be accepted as correct. At the time when the
petitioner and direct recruits were appointed to Grade D,
there was one class in Grade D formed of direct recruits
and the promotees from the grade of artisans. The recruits
from both the sources to Grade D were integrated into one
class and no discrimination could thereafter be made in
favour of recruits from one source as against the recruits
from the other source in the matter of promotion to Grade
C. To put it differently, once the direct recruits and
promotees are absorbed into one cadre, they form one class
and they cannot be discriminated for the purpose of further
promotion to the higher Grade C.”

49. Since G.O. Ms. No. 382 dated 12th October, 2007 was
issued to remove the injustice done to Leprosy
Inspectors at the time when G.O. Ms. No. 320 dated 27th
June, 1997 was issued. We are unable to accept the
submission of Mr. Rao that any unjustified retrospective
effect has been given to the G.O. Ms. No. 382 dated 12th
October, 2007. Consequently, we also do not find any
merit in the submission of Mr. Rao that granting the
benefit of service to Health Inspectors Grade IB on the
post of health Inspector Grade I resulted in enforcement
of a negative equity. Therefore, the judgments relied
upon by the learned counsel would not be applicable in
the facts and circumstances of this case.

50. In view of the detailed reasons given above, we also do
not find any merit in the submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioners that there was not a
complete merger between the post of Leprosy Inspectors
and Multi Purpose Health Supervisor, by G.O. Ms. No. 320
dated 27th June, 1997.

51. We also do not find any substance in the submission of
the Additional Advocate General, that the erstwhile
Leprosy Inspectors have been given double benefit of
promotion as they still continue to enjoy original
channel of promotion on the post of Non-Medical
Supervisor and Health Educator.
52. The promotion on the aforesaid posts were being given to
the Health Inspectors Grade IB only in view of the
wholly illegal prohibition contained in G.O. Ms. No. 320
of 1997.

53. These observations are fully applicable in the facts and
circumstances of this case.

54. We, therefore, find the submissions of the appellant to
be devoid of any merit. The High Court was justified in
quashing the Paras 6(iv) and (v) of the G.O.Ms. No.382.
The seniority of the respondent has to be fixed in the
cadre of Health Inspector Grade I by giving the benefit
of service from 27th June, 1997. Further, they are
eligible to be promoted on completion of 5 years service
on the post of Health Inspector Grade I, though, they
can be placed at the bottom of the seniority of serving
Health Inspector Grade I as on 1st August, 1997.
55. We may also mention here about the extent of
interference of this court in matters relating to
integration or fusion of employees. This court held in
the Indian Airlines Officers Association’s case (supra)
that the matter of integration or the fusion of
employees, being one of policy, could not have been
challenged by the employees unless the said decision was
arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious. And as noticed
earlier, that none of the Government Orders vide which
integration was effectuated, suffers from any of the
aforesaid irregularities. The High Court has merely
undone the injustice done to the respondents. We are,
therefore, not inclined to interfere in the well
reasoned order of the Division Bench of the High Court.
56. We have given considerable thought to the law laid in
the judgments cited and relied upon by Mr. Rao, learned
senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

57. However, none of the principles enunciated by this Court
in the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the
appellants have been infringed by any of the actions
taken on the basis of G.O.Ms. No. 320 dated 27th June,
1997 and G.O. Ms. No. 382 dated 12th October,
2007. In our opinion, the High Court, in fact rightly
quashed and set aside the offending clauses of 6(iv) and
6(v) of G.O. Ms. No. 382 dated 12th October, 2007.

58. At this stage, we may summarise the conclusions recorded
by us in the following manner:-
i. The integration of Leprosy Inspectors into the
Department of Health and Preventive Medicine by
G.O.Ms. No. 320 dated 27th June, 1997 was complete
in all respects.
ii. The aforesaid G.O. Ms. No. 320 dated 27th June, 1997
did not bring about an amendment in the Statutory
Services Rules contained in G.O. Ms. No. 1507 dated
16th August, 1989. The G.O.Ms. was supplementary to
the aforesaid Rules and did not supplant the same.
iii. There was no relaxation in the educational
qualification for the integration/re-designation of
Leprosy Inspectors as Multi Purpose Health
Supervisors as the post of Leprosy Inspector was
equated with the post of Multi Purpose Health
Supervisor. The qualifications prescribed for
appointment on the post of Multi Purpose Health
Assistants re-designated as Health Inspector Grade
II were not applicable for the post of Multi Purpose
Health Supervisor.
iv. Since, there was a complete integration of the posts
of Leprosy Inspector and Multi Purpose Health
Supervisor by virtue of G.O.Ms. No. 320 dated 27th
June, 1997; both categories were entitled to the
same treatment. Therefore, Leprosy Inspectors re-
designated as Health Inspector Grade IB were
entitled to the pay-scale of Rs.1350-2000 w.e.f. 1st
August, 1997 and the pay-scale of Rs.4500-7000
w.e.f. the same were given to Health Inspector Grade
IA, with all consequential benefits.
v. Upon integration vide G.O.Ms. No. 320
dated 27th June, 1997, Multi Purpose Health
Supervisors and Leprosy Inspectors were to be
re-designated as Health Inspector Grade I. The
birth mark of the Leprosy Inspector got obliterated
with the integration. There could be no further
distinction in the cadre of Health Inspector
Grade I. There could be no such division as
Health Inspector Grade IA and Health Inspector Grade
IB.
vi. Since Paragraph 6(iv) and 6(v) of G.O.Ms. No. 382
dated 12th October, 2007 was in violation of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India,
they have been correctly struck down by the High
Court.
vii. The denial of seniority to the re-designated Health
Inspectors Grade IB, i.e., erstwhile Leprosy
Inspectors on the post of Health Inspector Grade I
w.e.f. 1st August, 1997 to 12th October, 2007
violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India. The Division Bench of the High Court has
correctly concluded that the integrated Leprosy
Inspectors, re-designated as Health Inspector Grade
IB are to be re-designated as Health Inspector Grade
I and to be given seniority as well as consequential
reliefs such as seniority and further promotions.
viii. The provision contained in Clause 6(v) of G.O.Ms.
No. 382 dated 12th October, 2007 denying promotion
of the re-designated Health Inspector Grade I to the
post of Block Health Supervisor and Technical
Personal Assistant till the last person in the
existing list of Health Inspector Grade I gets
promotion as Block Health Supervisor and Technical
Personal Assistant, has been rightly held by the
High Court to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India.
ix. The continuance of the existing promotion channels
as Non-Medical Supervisor and Health Educator to the
re-designated Health Inspector grade I (erstwhile
Leprosy Inspectors) did not amount to bestowing a
double benefit upon this category. Therefore, the
High Court did not enforce negative equality. The
High Court has correctly observed that upon
integration and merger into one cadre, the pre-
existing length of service of the Leprosy Inspectors
re-designated as Health Inspector Grade IB had to be
protected as it can not be obliterated. Therefore,
the Leprosy Inspectors have been correctly placed at
the bottom of the seniority list of the already
existing Health Inspectors Grade I w.e.f. 27th June,
1997. Therefore, it can not be said that benefit
has been given to the Leprosy Inspectors /Health
Inspector Grade IB /Health Inspector Grade I with
retrospective effect.

59. In view of the aforesaid conclusions, we find no merit
in any of the following Civil Appeals, i.e., Civil
Appeal No.4491 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 566 of
2011, Civil Appeal No 4492 of 2013 arising out of SLP
(C) No. 4572 of 2011, Civil Appeal No.4493 of 2013
arising out of SLP (C) No. 2179 of 2011, Civil Appeal No
4495 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 2183 of 2011,
Civil Appeal No.4494 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No.
2188 of 2011, Civil Appeal No.4496 of 2013 arising out
of SLP (C) No. 2191 of 2011, Civil Appeal No.4498 of
2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 2194 of 2011, Civil
Appeal No. 4497 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 2196
of 2011, Civil Appeal No. 4499 of 2013 arising out of
SLP (C) No. 3485 of 2011, Civil Appeal No.4483 of 2013
arising out of SLP (C) No. 24492 of 2010, Civil Appeal
No.4484 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 24493 of
2010, Civil Appeal No.4485 of 2013 arising out of SLP
(C) No. 24494 of 2010, Civil Appeal No.4487 of 2013
arising out of SLP (C) No. 25388 of 2010 and the
connected appeals being Civil Appeal No.4486 of 2013
arising out of SLP (C) No. 25226 of 2010, Civil Appeal
No.4488 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 25417 of
2010, Civil Appeal No.4489 of 2013 arising out of SLP
(C) No. 26159 of 2010, Civil Appeal No.4490 of 2013
arising out of SLP (C) No. 25442 of 2010, Civil Appeal
No.4500 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 15221 of
2011, Civil Appeal No.4501-4502 of 2013 arising out of
SLP (C) No. 4710-4711 of 2012 and Civil Appeal No.4503-
4504 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 10939-10940 of
2012. All of them are hereby dismissed.

60. Further, no need arises for passing a separate order in
the Contempt Petition No. 133 of 2012 in Civil Appeal
No.4498 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 2194 of 2011
and Contempt Petition No. 145 of 2012 in Civil Appeal
No.4492 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 4572 of 2011,
as the said Contempt Petitions would be rendered
infructuous by this judgment.

…………………………
…J.
[Surinder Singh
Nijjar]

………………………….
J.
[H.L.
Gokhale]
New Delhi;
May 07, 2013.
ITEM NO.IA COURT NO.10 SECTION XII
(For Judgment)
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.24492-24494/2010

S.SIVAGURU Petitioner(s)
VERSUS

STATE OF T.NADU & ORS. Respondent(s)

WITH
SLP(C) NO. 25226 of 2010

SLP(C) NO. 25388 of 2010

SLP(C) NO. 25417 of 2010

SLP(C) NO. 26159 of 2010

SLP(C) NO. 25442 of 2010

SLP(C) NO. 566 of 2011

SLP(C) NO. 4572 of 2011

SLP(C) NO. 2179 of 2011

SLP(C) NO. 2188 of 2011

SLP(C) NO. 2183 of 2011

SLP(C) NO. 2191 of 2011

SLP(C) NO. 2196 of 2011

SLP(C) NO. 2194 of 2011

SLP(C) NO. 3485 of 2011

SLP(C) NO. 15221 of 2011

SLP(C) NO. 4710-4711 of 2012

SLP(C) NO. 10939-10940 of 2012

CONTEMPT PET. (C) No. 133/2012 in SLP(C) No. 2194/2011

CONTEMPT PET. (C) No. 145/2012 in SLP(C) No. 4572/2011

Date:07/05/2013 These Petitions were called on for judgment today.

For the appearing parties :-

Ms. V. Mohana, Adv.

Mr. Vikas Mehta, Adv.

Mr. B. Balaji, Adv.

Mr. S. Ravi Shankar, Adv.

Mr. Satya Mitra Garg, Adv.

Mrs. Geetha Kovilan, Adv.

M/s Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.

Mr. Naresh Kumar, Adv.

Mr. T. Harish Kumar, Adv.

Mr. V. Ramasubramanian, Adv.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar pronounced the
judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.L.
Gokhale.
Delay condoned.
The applications for impleadment are rejected.
The applications for deletion are allowed.
Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.
The civil appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed
judgment.
No separate order in contempt petitions.

(SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR) (S.S.R. KRISHNA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)

———————–
[1] (1968) 1 SCR 111

[2] (2003) 11 SCC 614

[3] (2002) 1 SCC 1

[4] 1994 Sup (3) SCC 451

[5] (1993) Supp. 3 SCC 575

[6] (2000) 7 SCC 561

[7] (2006) 6 SCC 430

[8] (2006) 4 SCC 1

[9] (1998) 6 SCC 165

[10] (2009) 12 SCC 231

[11] (2007) 15)SCC 406

[12] 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 188

[13] (1997) 1 SCC 35

[14] (1996) 2 SCC 459

[15] (2009) 15 SCC 705

[16] (2006) 8 SCC 42

[17] (1997) 10 SCC 616

[18] (2009) 1 SCC 695

[19] (2009) 1 SCC 546

[20] (2009) 15 SCC 321

[21] 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 408

[22] (2008) 1 SCC 722

[23] (1994) 1 SCC 437

[24] (2007) 10 SCC 684

[25] (1990) 2 SCC 647

[26] (2008) 4 SCC 171

[27] (2010) 3 SCC 314

[28] (1980) 4 SCC 562

[29] (1974) 4 SCC 335

[30] (1973) 3 SCC 559

[31] (1987) 4 SCC 566

[32] (1982) 1 SCC 379

[33] (1982) 2 SCC 116

[34] (2000) 1 SCC 644

[35] (2010) 9 SCC 655

[36] (1968) 2 SCR 186

[37] (1968) 1 SCR 185

 

 

 

 

 

About these ads

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 685,537 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,586 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com

comments

k.inbasakaran,advoca… on Sec.138 of N.I.Act – Ter…
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,586 other followers