Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 873
High Court of Judicature at Madras
VINOD K. SHARMA, J.
R. Sigamani
Versus
The Government of Tamilnadu Rep. By the Secretary to Government Adhi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department & Others
Writ Petition No. 9513 of 2008 & M.P. Nos. 1 & 2 of 2008
Decided On : 12-02-2013
For the Petitioner:R. Saseedharan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: R. Ravichandran, Additional Government Pleader.
The impugned order of pay revision, being a consequential order, cannot be challenged in the absence of challenge of the basic order.
Headnote:
Certiorari - Pay Revision - The court dismissed the petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order of pay revision, stating that the impugned order was only a consequential order and cannot be challenged in the absence of challenge of the basic order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash an order of pay revision and restore their pay to a specific amount. The order of pay revision was challenged before the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal, but the Original Application was dismissed in default and not restored.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order of pay revision was only a consequential order and could not be challenged in the absence of challenge of the basic order. The petition was dismissed with no costs.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the order of pay revision and the petitioner's challenge to it, as well as the effect of the dismissal of the Original Application on the validity of the pay revision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned order of pay revision, being a consequential order, could not be challenged in the absence of challenge of the basic order. The dismissal of the Original Application meant that the order of pay revision held good.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with no costs, and the connected MPs were also dismissed.
1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order AG (A&E)/PENPO9/1/S349-1918/RVN/2003-2004/10624 dated 5.3.2004, of the fourth respondent with the consequential relief to direct the respondents to restore the pay of the petitioner as Rs.2,060/- (Rupees two thousand and sixty only) in the scale of pay of Rs.2000-3200 with effect from 1.6.1988, and Rs.8,825/-(Rupees eight thousand eight hundred and twenty-five only) as on 1.1.1996, and fix the petitioner's last drawn pay at Rs.10,475/- (Rupees ten thousand four hundred and seventy-five only) and fix the pensionary benefits accordingly.
2. Order was passed by the respondent No.3 re-fixing the pay of the petitioner, by holding that the earlier fixation of the petitioner's pay was not correct. The petitioner challenged the order before the learned Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal, where the Original Application was admitted and stay was granted in favour of the petitioner.
3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that the impugned order cannot be sustained as it is based on an order passed by the respondent No.3 in revising the pay scale of the petitioner, which was stayed by the learned Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal, therefore was deemed to be suspended.
4. It is not in dispute that the Original Application filed by the petitioner challenging the order of revision of pay, was dismissed in default and has not been restored; meaning thereby that the order passed by the respondent No.3 revising the pay of petitioner, holds good.
5. The impugned order is only a consequential order and therefore, once the basic order is in force, its consequential order cannot be challenged or interfered with, in the absence of challenge of basic order.
6. No merit. Dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MPs are also dismissed.
