F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.

The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the second respondent, dated August 19, 1998, communicated to the Presidents of the Panchayats of St. Thomas Mount Panchayat Union, advising them to continue to pay daily-wages at the rate of Rs. 58 per day to the part time daily-wage employees and the revised rate of Rs. 74 can be made after receipt of further orders from the first respondent as advised by the Personal Assistant of the first respondent.

According to the petitioner, by the proceedings, dated September 16, 1997, the First respondent passed an order provisionally revising the rates of daily-wages for the part-time menial servants paid from contingencies for the financial year 1997-98, i.e., from April 1, 1997 to March 31, 1998 at the rate of Rs. 74, that on the previous occasion also, i.e., for the financial year 1994-95, the said rates were revised from Rs. 42 to 53 and when the revised wages were not implemented, a writ petition came to be filed in W.P. No. 12764 of 1995 and by order, dated September 1, 1997, the respective Panchayats were directed to pay the increased wages including arrears from April 1, 1994, within a specified date. It is therefore contended that the present direction of the second respondent to the various Panchayats of the St. Thomas Mount Panchayat Union, not to implement the revised orders of the first respondent was liable to be set aside.

The first respondent has filed a counter-affidavit contending that as per Section 101 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, no post in the village panchayat was created and filled up without previous sanction of the first respondent that in none of the village panchayats coming under the administrative jurisdiction of the second respondent, the first respondent has either sanctioned or authorised any post, that the presidents of the village panchayat could employ the services of any one for any casual work and pay for that days work, that some of the presidents coming within the control of the second respondent claimed to have employed such persons and disburse emoluments that there was no necessity to employ on full time basis and pay wages for the entire month, that part-time employees could be paid consolidated wages at Rs. 300 per month whose employment used to last for about 90 minutes in a day and that the sweepers and overhead tank operators being only part-time employees, they are entitled only for Rs. 350 per month. According to the first respondent, the schedule of rates fixed by the Collector in proceedings dated September 16, 1997, cannot be applied to the part-time workers employed in the village panchayats. It is however stated that only if any need arises to employ any one for any specific work, in those cases a days wage as mentioned in the proceedings, dated September 16, 1997, could be paid. It is specifically averred that it is not open for any panchayat to claim that persons were engaged continuously for the whole of the month and that they were entitled to claim at the rate of Rs. 74 per day. It is contended that the proceedings, dated September 16, 1997 itself provide the monthly wages to be paid to the part-time employees only at the rate of Rs. 145 per month.As regards the earlier orders of this Court, it is contended that the said writ petition came to be allowed since no counter-affidavit was filed by any of the respondents objecting to the claim of the petitioner in that writ petition and therefore the present writ-petitioner cannot take advantage of the relief granted in the said writ petition for payment of higher wages. According to the first respondent, the instruction to the second respondent was not to pay higher wages to those who are not entitled for the higher wage fixed by the first respondent in his proceedings.

The learned Government Pleader also placed before the Court G.O.Ms. No. 192, dated June 10, 1997, wherein the consolidated wages of Rs. 150 fixed for the part-time menial servants and overhead tank operators was revised from Rs. 150 to Rs. 250 per month depending upon the financial status and the nature of job of the concerned village panchayats.

Having heard the learned counsel of either parties and the perusal of the proceedings of the first respondent, dated September 16, 1997, it could be seen that the first respondent revised the market rates, wages etc., for the full time, part-time menial servants paid from contingencies and also daily rates of wages for the financial year 1997-98, i.e. from April 1, 1997 to March 31, 1998 provisionally as detailed in the Annexures I, II and III. The said order also specifies that the categories mentioned in Annexure I namely, full time menial servants paid from contingencies alone were eligible to draw the arrears of D.A. sanctioned by the Government and also to draw increased D.A. announced by the Government from time to time. Annexure I consists of 11 posts starting from watchman-cum-sweeper to sweeper (maestri). All the said 11 posts were stated to be full time menial servants paid from contingencies. Annexure II consists of 7 posts starting from scavenger male/female to Electrical Assistant. All the said seven posts were stated to be part-time menial servants paid from contingencies. While the posts covered by Annexure I, namely full time menial servants are paid with D.A. and other benefits applicable to them, the posts covered by Annexure II are paid consolidated pay along with some interim relief. The sum total of such consolidated pay is Rs. 145 for all the posts. Annexure III consists of 60 different categories starting from auto-electrician to wireless supervisor who are paid various rates of wages on daily basis.According to the first respondent by virtue of Section 101 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, it is not open for the village panchayat or panchayat council or the district panchayat to vary the number, designation, grades, salaries, fees or allowances fixed by the Government or the Inspector of the Panchayats in the case of village panchayats to be altered except with the previous sanction of the Government or the Inspector. It is also stated that in none of the village panchayats coming under the administrative jurisdiction of the second respondent, any new posts were sanctioned or authorised by the first respondent. If that be the case, it is axiomatic that the persons with reference to whom, the claims are agitated in the present writ petition are not covered by the employees falling under Annexures I and II of the proceedings of the first respondent, dated September 16, 1997. It is also not the claim of the petitioner that all those employees fall under the categories covered by Annexures I and II. On the other hand, the averments contained in the affidavit make it implicit that the claim relates to the persons employed as overhead tank operators, electrician, office assistant, watchman-cum-sweepers in the various panchayat unions for whom, the wages are paid on daily-rate basis.

The engagement of the employees who fall under the categories covered by Annexure III cannot be on a regular basis, inasmuch as the engagement of such persons could be only under certain special contingencies. When the employees covered by Annexures I and II namely the regular full time menial servants and the part time employees would not meet the requirement the respective village panchayats could avail the services of such daily-rated employees under certain special contingencies. The second respondent being the competent authority having jurisdiction over the various village panchayats coming under St. Thomas Panchayat Union has every jurisdiction to ascertain before authorising the respective village panchayats to make payments when a claim is made that such contingency employment lasted for all the 30 days in the month throughout the year. Viewed in that respect, though, it will have to be held that the employees employed on such daily-wage basis were entitled for the wages at the rate of Rs. 74 per day by virtue of the proceedings of the first respondent, dated September 16, 1997, it will have to be held that when such payment was sought to be made on a monthly basis claiming that such engagement lasted for all the 30 days during the entire financial year, the second respondent could make appropriate investigation and ascertain whether at all such engagement as claimed to have been made by the respective village panchayats of St. Thomas Panchayat union was true as claimed by it.With that view, this writ petition is disposed of holding that the employees covered by Annexure III of the first respondent proceedings, dated September 16, 1997, were entitled for wages to be paid at the rate of Rs. 74 per day for the financial year 1997-98 i.e., from July 1, 1997 to March 31, 1998, and that as to such of those employees who were really engaged strictly in accordance with the said proceedings alone would be entitled for such payment and whether the engagement was made in accordance with the said proceedings falling under Annexure III could be ascertained to the satisfaction of the second respondent and only on such ascertainment and after passing necessary orders to that effect based on such ascertainment, the payments could be made. However, it is open for the second respondent to reject sanction of such payment in the event of the second respondent finding that the claim of such engagement was found to be not genuine and not in consonance with the proceedings of the first respondent, dated September 16, 1997.

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, writ miscellaneous petition is closed.