(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ in the nature of Declaration, declaring that the order Na.Ka.No.26093/Pa Aa 6/2007 dated 07/11/2007 issued by the 2nd respondent read with the order No.SM NO 3728/Aa/07/ dated 20/12/2007 issued by the 3rd respondent as illegal and unconstitutional consequently direct the respondents to contiue the petitioners on Selection Grade and Special Grade in the post of Junior Inspector of Sericulture with effect from 1/10/1994 and 1/10/2004 respectively with all attendant benefits.)

Common Order:

1. This judgment shall dispose of W.P.Nos.4566 to 4575 of 2008, as common question of law and facts are involved in all these writ petitions.

2. For the sake of brevity, facts in W.P.No.4566 of 2008 have been taken to decide the issue in all these writ petitions.

3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to challenge the order, dated 7.11.2007 passed by the Commissioner, Department of Sericulture and also the consequential order, dated 20.12.2012 passed by the Assistant Director, Department of Sericulture, revoking the benefit of merger of posts of Sericulture Demonstrator with the post of Junior Inspector of Sericulture with effect from 1.10.1984 and substituting it with 7.11.1987 thereby reducing the pay of the petitioner and also ordering recovery.

4. The petitioner joined the service as Sericulture Operator in the year 1981. Vide G.O.Ms.No.694, dated 11.8.1986, the pay scale of Sericulture Demonstrator was Rs.505 845 to Rs.610 1075 (ordinary grade) and selection grade from Rs.555 970 to Rs.705 1230. It was also decided to merge the post of Sericulture Demonstrator with the post of Junior Inspector of Sericulture.

5. It is pertinent to mention here that post of Sericulture Operator was merged with Sericulture Demonstrator prior to the revision of pay scale. On merger of the posts, the petitioner was re-designated as Junior Inspector of Sericulture and was placed in the revised scale of Pay of Rs.610 1075 with effect from 1.10.1984 and monetary benefits from 1.1.1986. The Government issued another order vide G.O.Ms.No.310, dated 7.11.1987 confirming the merger of two posts and re-designation as Junior Inspector of Sericulture. The re-designated Junior Inspector placed below existing Junior Inspector of Sericulture in the seniority list.

6. It was also decided to stop recruitment of Sericulture Demonstrator in the future in order to effectively absorb the petitioners in the post of Junior Inspector of Sericulture, the Government relaxed educational qualification and experience of five years for being appointed/promoted to the post of Junior Inspector. This relaxation was given to the class of people i.e. 159 Sericulture Demonstrator including the petitioners. In view of the grant of relaxation in qualification, absorption of the petitioner in Junior Inspector stood relaxed and secondly, on completion of ten years of service, the petitioner was granted Selection Grade and thereafter, on completion of 20 years of service, was granted Special Grade as per the service rules and Government instructions issued in this regard from time to time.

7. The State Government had also issued another Government order to grant relaxation of educational qualification and experience for over 59 Sericulture Demonstrators whose names were earlier left out in G.O.Ms.No.46, dated 3.3.1997. The respondent No.2 by way of the impugned order Na.Ka.No.26093/Pa Aa 6/2007, dated 7.11.2007 altered the date of grant of benefit of merger from 1.10.1984 to 7.11.1987 for 218 Junior Inspectors of Sericulture in whose case, educational qualification was relaxed by the Government Order, dated 7.11.1987.

8. The impugned order has been challenged primarily on the two grounds;

Firstly, that the State Government could not have withdrawn the benefits given to the petitioners with retrospective effect and thereby to order recovery of benefits granted to the petitioners;

Secondly, that the impugned order on the face of it is arbitrary, thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, in as much as once relaxation in qualification, experience was granted, then there was no reason whatsoever to treat the same to be operative only from future date. The object of giving relaxation of Rule to specified class of persons by invoking rule of relaxation to remove hardship being faced by the group of employees and therefore, the relaxation has to be interpreted for the benefit of employees to remove hardship and not to defeat the very object for which relaxation has been granted.

Thirdly, that the impugned order is violative of principle of natural justice, as no notice was given before passing the impugned order which adversely affect the civil rights of the petitioner.

9. The learned Additional Government Pleader has produced an order passed by the State Government granting relaxation in qualification and experience with retrospective effect i.e. from the date of merger meaning thereby very basis of passing the impugned order is also ceased to exist.

10. On consideration, I find force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Once it is not disputed that two posts were merged by giving relaxation in age and qualification, there was no justification to pass the impugned order to withdraw the benefits granted to the employees, under the conditions of service, that too without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner.

11. The impugned order also cannot be sustained, as the Government by subsequent Government order decided to grant relaxation in qualification and experience with retrospective effect i.e. from the date of merger of the post of Sericulture Demonstrator with Junior Inspector of Sericulture meaning thereby the petitioners were rightly given service benefits from the date of merger of post with Junior Inspector of Sericulture. The impugned orders therefore can be safely said to be arbitrary thus, not sustainable in law.

12. This view finds support from the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.27719 of 2011 (K.Viswanathan and others vs. The Secretary to Govt. and others) decided on 19.6.2012.

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside.