Madras HC Rejects 35 Highway Drivers’ Bid for Selection- and Special-Grade Pay After 10 and 20 Years, Citing a Supreme Court-Confirmed Ruling

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to the claimed Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales, on parity with drivers who received those grades before 31 May 2009.

The court held

The Court dismissed the writ petition in light of the prior Division Bench and Supreme Court decisions.

It also directed

No costs were awarded.

01Facts

The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant them Selection Grade pay of ₹9,330–34,500 plus Grade Pay of ₹4,200 on completion of 10 years’ service, and Special Grade pay of ₹9,300–34,500 plus Grade Pay of ₹4,400 on completion of 20 years’ service.

p. 2

They claimed parity with drivers who had received those grades before 31 May 2009, together with arrears and consequential benefits.

p. 2

The respondents opposed the petition, relying on prior decisions of the Madras High Court Division Bench and the Supreme Court rejecting an identical claim concerning drivers and G.O.Ms.No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 13 April 1998.

p. 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to the claimed Selection Grade and Special Grade pay scales, on parity with drivers who received those grades before 31 May 2009.

p. 2

ii.2. Whether the claim could succeed in light of the Division Bench decision in W.A.No.1398 of 2013 and connected cases, as subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court.

p. 3

03Law Applied

The Court applied the prior decisions of the Madras High Court Division Bench in W.A.No.1398 of 2013 and connected matters, considered alongside W.P.No.23550 of 2010 and connected matters, which rejected an identical pay-scale claim concerning drivers under G.O.Ms.No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 13 April 1998.

p. 3

The Supreme Court subsequently confirmed that decision in S.L.P. (Civil) Nos.9560–9561 of 2019, by judgment dated 18 December 2019.

p. 3

The Court treated those decisions as governing the claim before it.

p. 3

04Reasoning

The petitioners sought pay-scale parity with drivers, but the respondents identified prior proceedings involving an identical claim.

p. 3

The Court relied on the Division Bench’s rejection of that claim and the Supreme Court’s subsequent confirmation, concluding that the issue was no longer res integra.

p. 3

It therefore did not grant the requested pay scales or consequential benefits.

p. 3