A delayed rule amendment implementing government policy operates retrospectively to protect inter se seniority.

M. Vijayakumar was appointed as a Wireman Helper on 22 December 1989 and promoted as a Bill Collector on 11 March 1997.

Subsequently, Bill Collector posts were redesignated as Revenue Assistant posts.

By G.O.(Ms.) No. 264 dated 18 September 1991, the Government decided that Revenue Assistant and Junior Assistant posts in the Municipal General Service would be interchangeable and would constitute feeder categories for the post of Assistant.

The corresponding amendment to the Tamil Nadu Municipal General Service Rules, 1970 was issued only through G.O.(Ms.) No. 222 dated 30 September 1999.

The Department refused to extend the benefit of inter se seniority between Revenue Assistants and Junior Assistants from 18 September 1991, contending that the rule amendment operated only prospectively from 30 September 1999.

Vijayakumar challenged the rejection order dated 27 July 2015 in W.P. No. 25984 of 2015.

The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed fixation of inter se seniority, notional promotion and consequential service benefits.

The Department preferred the present intra-Court appeal.

Whether the decision in G.O.(Ms.) No. 264 dated 18 September 1991, making Revenue Assistant and Junior Assistant posts interchangeable, could be given effect from that date notwithstanding that the formal amendment to the service rules was issued only on 30 September 1999?

Whether the respondent was entitled to inter se seniority with Junior Assistants and consequential notional promotion and pensionary benefits on the basis of the 1991 Government decision?

The Court applied the Tamil Nadu Municipal General Service Rules, 1970, under which the post of Assistant was in Class V, Junior Assistant was in Class VII and Revenue Assistant was in Class IX, with Junior Assistant originally constituting the feeder category for Assistant.

It also applied G.O.(Ms.) No. 264, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 18 September 1991, which changed the nomenclature of Bill Collectors to Revenue Assistants and declared Revenue Assistant and Junior Assistant posts interchangeable.

G.O.(Ms.) No. 222 dated 30 September 1999, which formally amended the Rules, was treated as a ministerial or enabling measure intended to implement the substantive policy decision already made and published in 1991.

The Court held that an administrative delay of eight years in carrying out the necessary rule amendment could not prejudice employees who were otherwise entitled to the benefit of the Government’s earlier decision.

Although Revenue Assistant was originally placed in Class IX and was not a feeder category for the Class V post of Assistant, the Government had expressly decided in 1991 that Revenue Assistant and Junior Assistant posts would be interchangeable.

The Court distinguished between the substantive policy decision, which was made and published through G.O.(Ms.) No. 264 in 1991, and the subsequent formal rule amendment, which merely enabled implementation of that decision.

Since the eight-year delay in amending the Rules was attributable to the Department and not to the employees, the Court held that the amendment could not be restricted prospectively from 30 September 1999 so as to defeat the respondent’s accrued service rights.

As Vijayakumar was appointed as a Bill Collector/Revenue Assistant in 1997, after the 1991 Government decision, he was entitled to be considered along with Junior Assistants for inter se seniority and consequential promotion benefits.

The Court therefore upheld the writ court’s conclusion that the respondent’s seniority, promotion and pensionary benefits should be notionally revised.

The Court held that the interchangeability of Revenue Assistant and Junior Assistant posts operated from 18 September 1991, the date of G.O.(Ms.) No. 264, and not merely from 30 September 1999, the date of the formal rule amendment.

The respondent was held entitled to inter se seniority, notional promotion and consequential pay fixation.

As he had already superannuated, the Department was directed to recalculate his pensionary benefits on the basis of the revised last drawn pay, pay pension arrears and continue payment of the revised pension during his lifetime, within eight weeks from receipt of the judgment.

No order as to costs was made, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.