Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 1879
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
K. Anjayan - Appellant
Versus
The District Collector of Thanjavur & Director of Saraswathi Mahal Library, Thanjavur & Another - Respondent
W.P.No. 16028 of 2010
Decided On : 06-06-2022
For the Petitioner:P. Rajendran, Advocate. For the Respondents:M. Alagu Gowtham, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the benefit of 5% personal pay was intended to be given to all the employees affected by scales of pay for which appropriate revision was not given. The court also emphasized the principle that when there are conflicting decisions by co-equal benches, the judgment which appears to state the law more elaborately and accurately should be followed.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Restoration of 5% Personal Pay - G.O.MS.No.664 - The court analyzed the G.O.MS.No.664 and held that the benefit of 5% personal pay was intended to be given to all the employees affected by scales of pay for which appropriate revision was not given. The court found that the omission of in-between scales of pay would amount to discrimination, violative of Article 14. The court also referred to the legal position established by the Judgment of the Hon-ble Supreme Court of India in Kunhayammed and Ors, Vs. State of Kerala and Another and held that the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition did not affirm the latter Division Bench Judgment as the law. The court followed the principle that when there are conflicting decisions by co-equal benches, the judgment which appears to state the law more elaborately and accurately should be followed. The court concluded that the earlier Division Bench judgment was more correct in dealing with the issue at hand and allowed the Writ Petition to restore the 5% personal pay to the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Binder at the Saraswathi Mahal Library, sought restoration of the 5% personal pay, which was discontinued after an order dated 13.04.1999. The petitioner's scale of pay was not specifically mentioned in the G.O.MS.No.664, leading to the recovery order. The petitioner approached the court challenging the recovery order, which was set aside. Subsequently, the petitioner made a representation to restore the 5% personal pay, leading to the present Writ Petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the benefit of 5% personal pay was intended to be given to all the employees affected by scales of pay for which appropriate revision was not given. The court held that the omission of in-between scales of pay would amount to discrimination, violative of Article 14. The court also referred to the legal position established by the Judgment of the Hon-ble Supreme Court of India in Kunhayammed and Ors, Vs. State of Kerala and Another and held that the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition did not affirm the latter Division Bench Judgment as the law. The court followed the principle that when there are conflicting decisions by co-equal benches, the judgment which appears to state the law more elaborately and accurately should be followed. The court concluded that the earlier Division Bench judgment was more correct in dealing with the issue at hand and allowed the Writ Petition to restore the 5% personal pay to the petitioner.
Issues: The issues involved in the case were the restoration of the 5% personal pay to the petitioner, the interpretation of G.O.MS.No.664, and the conflicting decisions by co-equal benches regarding the entitlement to the benefit of the pay scale.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the benefit of 5% personal pay was intended to be given to all the employees affected by scales of pay for which appropriate revision was not given. The court also followed the principle that when there are conflicting decisions by co-equal benches, the judgment which appears to state the law more elaborately and accurately should be followed.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Writ Petition to restore the 5% personal pay to the petitioner and directed the respondents to grant the petitioner all consequential benefits, including further revision of pay, on the strength of such personal pay. The court also directed the respondents to carry out the exercise of re-fixing the pay of the petitioner and effect all consequential revisions of pay, including revision of the retiral benefits and pension in accordance with the law, within a specified period.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to restore the 5% personal pay with effect from 01.08.1992 and fix the petitioner-s pay accordingly and grant him all consequential benefits.)
The petitioner, who was working as Binder under the second respondent at the Saraswathi Mahal Library was initially appointed on 11.06. 1989. The pre-revised scale of pay for the said post of Binder in the fifth pay commission was Rs.505 -845. However, since the pre-revised scales of pay starting from Rs.475 -775 upto Rs.705 - 1230 were not given an appropriate hike at the time of revision of scales in the sixth pay commission, the Government took note of the anomaly and issued G.O.MS.No.664, dated 01.08.1992 whereby it ordered to compensate the loss. It was decided to grant 5% personal pay to those affected employees. However in the said government order, four scales of pay were specifically mentioned and the scale of pay below the scale fixed for the petitioner and similarly, the scale of pay above the petitioner’s scale of pay were mentioned. However, the in-between scale of pay drawn by the petitioner is not specifically mentioned. It is useful to extract the relevant portion of the G.O.(M.S).No.664, which reads as follows:-
“4. At the same time the plea of these employees for Government to extend some sympathetic consideration has been taken note of, Government consider that these categories should be positively motivated in undertaking important items of work entrusted to them. Further job responsibilities of these categories require due recognition. Keeping in mind the importance of the job responsibilities attached to the categories in these scales of pay and the need to positively motivate these categories to undertake their responsibilities, Government have decided to grant a personal pay at five per cent of the basic accordingly direct that five per cent of the basic pay computed as on 1.8.92 be granted as personal pay to the following:-
(i) All categories of staff in the pre-revised scales of pay at Rs.475-775 moving over to the revised scale of pay of Rs.775-1030.
(ii) All categories of staff in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.610-1075 moving over to the revised scale of pay of Rs.950-1500 or Rs.975-1660.
(iii) All categories of staff in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.705-1230 moving over to the revised scale of pay of Rs.1600-2660. ”
2. The said Government Order was issued to redress the grievances of the employees in the scales of pay of Rs.475 -775 up to Rs.705 - 1230. Since the petitioner was in between he was also granted personal pay with effect from 1.08.1992 as per the said government order. Subsequently an order was passed on 13.04.1999, which is simply in the form of Memorandum ordering recovery of the 5% of pay, which was granted to the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court, challenging the said order by W.P.No.3149 of 2000. This Court allowed the said Writ Petition by quashing the recovery order in the following terms:-
In view of the same, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of recovery is set aside. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that now the respondents have stopped paying the special pay to the petitioner. In my considered opinion, the said grievance cannot be redressed in this writ petition. The petitioner is, therefore, at liberty to workout his remedies regarding the same elsewhere in the manner known to law.”
3. The petitioner, therefore, made a representation on 11.01.2010, to restore the said benefit of 5% personal pay, which was not granted and therefore, the present Writ Petition is filed.
4. The respondents are resisting the Writ Petition by filing a counter affidavit that the recovery order was passed on account of the audit objections. It is the case of the respondents that th
