The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has quashed an order issued by the State Express Transport Corporation (Tamil Nadu) Limited that denied pay revision benefits to a retired Senior Grade Driver. Justice Shamim Ahmed held that the order was arbitrary, passed without following due process, and violated the principles of natural justice.
Case Background
The petitioner, E. Balasubramanian, was appointed as a 2nd Grade Driver with the respondent corporation on April 16, 1987, and retired on April 30, 2016. He approached the court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the SETC’s order dated September 21, 2019, which had rejected his request for salary revision. He also sought a consequential direction to fix the revised scale of pay from 2008 to 2016.
The petitioner contended that as per SETC norms, driver pay scales are reviewed every seven years. He had made multiple representations to the authorities seeking revision of pay from September 2008 onwards. With no response, he filed WP(MD) No. 4898 of 2015, which was disposed of on December 13, 2018, with a direction to the second respondent to consider his representation within six weeks.
When no action was taken, he initiated Contempt Petition (MD) No. 1078 of 2019. This was closed after SETC informed the court that his representation had been rejected due to prior punishments and a leave record showing 540 days of loss of pay.
Petitioner’s Argument
The petitioner challenged the impugned order as a non-speaking one, passed without citing any legal provision disqualifying him from pay revision. He argued that no records were produced to substantiate the claim that he had suffered 11 punishments as alleged. He claimed that only three of those disciplinary actions were ever communicated to him and the rest were never brought to his notice.
SETC’s Stand
SETC contended that the petitioner was not entitled to pay revision because he had been subjected to multiple penalties including 11 instances of punishment such as postponement of increments with cumulative effect and leave on loss of pay for 540 days. These, the corporation argued, made him ineligible for salary revision on par with other drivers.
The alleged punishments ranged from 1991 to 2015 and included infractions such as allowing prohibited articles on board, accidents, misbehaviour, and reporting to duty under the influence of alcohol.
Court’s Analysis
The court noted that despite repeated directions—on August 16, 2024, February 14, 2025, April 29, 2025, June 9, 2025, and again on July 10, 2025—the respondents failed to produce any documentary proof of the 11 punishments or demonstrate that they were ever served on the petitioner.
Justice Shamim Ahmed observed:
“Since this Court finds no records to substantiate the alleged 11 punishments, based on which, the Petitioner was denied the revision of his salary for the relevant period by the impugned order, the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary and would amount to violation of principles of natural justice.”
The court also noted the absence of any explanation regarding the legal provision under which the revision was denied, holding that:
“The impugned order is a non-speaking order and it was passed without application of mind.”
It concluded that the order appeared to be passed with mala fide intent and only to harass the petitioner.
Final Decision
The court quashed the impugned order dated September 21, 2019, and allowed the writ petition. It directed the respondents to:
- Fix the revised scale of pay for the petitioner from 2008 to 2016.
- Pay the arrears of salary revision within six weeks from the receipt of the certified order.
- Continue paying pension at the revised rate on a monthly basis without fail.
There was no order as to costs. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.
