Madras HC Rejects Retired Timekeepers’ Higher-Pay Claim, Citing Their Exclusion From Skilled-Assistant Revision And Delay

The petitioners, former Time Keepers in the Public Works/Water Resources Department, sought revised Selection and Special Grade pay scales on the basis of G.O.Ms. Nos. 338 dated 26 August 2010 and 325 dated 22 July 2013, contending that they belonged to the Skilled Assistant Grade-II category.

The Government had directed pay revision for 13 categories of posts under Government Letter (Ms.) No. 4 dated 6 January 2021, but Time Keepers were not included.

The respondents maintained that Time Keeper was not a trade post and that the petitioners did not satisfy the relevant qualification requirements.

After the Government rejected their claim by letter dated 21 November 2024, the petitioners sought certiorari and consequential relief under Article 226.

Article 226 relief is discretionary, and a High Court may decline to exercise its writ jurisdiction where a claim is brought after inordinate, unexplained delay; relevant considerations include prejudice, public inconvenience, and intervening rights.

The Court relied on Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108; State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal, (1986) 4 SCC 566; and other authorities on delay and laches.

For eligibility, the Court applied Government Letter (Ms.) No. 4 dated 6 January 2021, which provided for pay revision for 13 specified post categories but did not include Time Keeper; the Court held that the alleged omission could not be treated as a typographical error in judicial review when the letter itself had not been challenged.

The petitioners’ reliance on State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347, was held inapplicable.

The petitioners had not established that Time Keepers were Skilled Assistants, while the governing Government Letter omitted their post and the petitioners had not challenged that letter.

Accordingly, the Court found no basis to treat the omission as a typographical error or extend the claimed pay scales to them.

Independently, the petitioners had retired long before filing the petition, and their representations did not sufficiently overcome the inordinate delay in seeking writ relief.

The equality principle invoked through Arvind Kumar Srivastava could not assist them in the absence of established eligibility and in light of the unchallenged Government Letter.

The connected miscellaneous petition was closed, with no order as to costs.