Madras High Court Allows Re-designation of Mechanic as Mechanic Grade-I in Service Law Dispute — Discrimination Found in Classification of Posts. Court held that classification of Mechanic posts into Mechanic Grade-I and Junior Mechanic without any government order is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

High Court: Madras High Court In Favour of Accused
  • 151
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, A.Vellaichamy, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order dated 7.2.2014 passed by the second respondent (Director of Collegiate Education) and to direct the respondents to re-designate him as Mechanic Grade-I with all attendant monetary and service benefits as per G.O.Ms.No.186 Higher Education Department dated 7.5.2004. The petitioner had completed a National Trade Certificate course in Lineman/Wireman Trade and joined the third respondent college as Electrician-cum-Mechanic on 27.06.1978. By G.O.(Ms)No.1147 dated 27.06.1978, the post was converted to Mechanic, classified into Mechanic Grade-I and Junior Mechanic. The petitioner was paid in the pay scale of Junior Mechanic. A similar issue arose in the case of Mr.P.Nelson, who filed W.P.No.18963 of 1996, which was allowed by the High Court, holding that the classification of Mechanic posts into Mechanic and Junior Mechanic was discriminatory. The Director of Collegiate Education filed W.A.No.260 of 2002, which was dismissed by a Division Bench, affirming that no government order recognized the status of Junior Mechanic. The court in the present case found that the impugned order was unsustainable and quashed it, directing the respondents to re-designate the petitioner as Mechanic Grade-I with all benefits within eight weeks.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Classification of Posts - Discrimination - Article 14 of the Constitution of India - The petitioner, appointed as Electrician-cum-Mechanic, was classified as Junior Mechanic while others were designated as Mechanic Grade-I without any government order. The court held that such classification is discriminatory and violative of Article 14, following the precedent in Nelson's case. (Paras 2-6)

B) Service Law - Re-designation - Government Order - G.O.Ms.No.186 Higher Education Department dated 7.5.2004 - The court directed the respondents to re-designate the petitioner as Mechanic Grade-I with all attendant monetary and service benefits, as per the government order, quashing the impugned order dated 7.2.2014. (Paras 7-8)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the classification of the post of Mechanic into Mechanic Grade-I and Junior Mechanic without any government order is discriminatory and whether the petitioner is entitled to be re-designated as Mechanic Grade-I with attendant benefits.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated 7.2.2014, and directed the respondents to re-designate the petitioner as Mechanic Grade-I with all attendant monetary and service benefits within eight weeks.

Law Points

  • Discrimination in classification of posts
  • Re-designation based on government order
  • Article 14 of the Constitution of India
  • Service law
  • Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (MAD) (01) 473

W.P(MD) No.17926 of 2016 and W.M.P(MD)No.16347 of 2017

2025-01-21

R. Poornima

2025:MHC:186

Mr.M.Saravanan for Petitioner, Mr.V.Omprakash Government Advocate for Respondents

A.Vellaichamy

Government of Tamil Nadu, Director of Collegiate Education, Principal of Periyar E.V.R. College

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking re-designation and benefits.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought quashing of impugned order dated 7.2.2014 and direction to re-designate him as Mechanic Grade-I with all attendant monetary and service benefits.

Filing Reason

Petitioner was classified as Junior Mechanic instead of Mechanic Grade-I, which he claimed was discriminatory.

Previous Decisions

In W.P.No.18963 of 1996 (Nelson), the High Court held that classification of Mechanic posts into Mechanic and Junior Mechanic was discriminatory. The appeal in W.A.No.260 of 2002 was dismissed by Division Bench.

Issues

Whether the classification of the post of Mechanic into Mechanic Grade-I and Junior Mechanic without any government order is discriminatory? Whether the petitioner is entitled to be re-designated as Mechanic Grade-I with attendant benefits?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the classification of Mechanic posts into Mechanic Grade-I and Junior Mechanic was discriminatory and without any government order, relying on the judgment in Nelson's case. Respondents argued that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Mechanic and was not entitled to re-designation.

Ratio Decidendi

The classification of the post of Mechanic into Mechanic Grade-I and Junior Mechanic without any government order is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner is entitled to be re-designated as Mechanic Grade-I as per G.O.Ms.No.186 dated 7.5.2004.

Judgment Excerpts

The Court held that the post of Mechanic was designated as Mechanic in some Colleges and Junior Mechanic in other Colleges. As it is discriminatory, the Court allowed the said writ petition. The Division Bench of this Court rejected the plea and hold that the Government never issued any order recognizing the status of technician as Junior Mechanic.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed W.P(MD) No.17926 of 2016 before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court challenging the order dated 7.2.2014. The court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 21.01.2025.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 14, Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Grants Bail to Accused in Murder Case Due to Absence of Overt Act and Completed Investigation. Bail Granted under Section 439 Cr.P.C. as Petitioner's Role Limited to Presence, No Recovery of Weapon, and Custodial Trial Not Req...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Revision Against Remand in Cross-Case Assault Matter. Appellate Court's Direction to Try Case and Counter Case Together Upheld to Avoid Conflicting Findings Under Section 401 CrPC.