Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
K. Barathy - Appellant
Versus
The Principal, Government College of Architecture & Sculpture, Kancheepuram & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 27287 of 2018
Decided On : 28-09-2022
Writ Petition - Refixation of Pay - G.O.Ms.No.340, Finance Department, dated 26.08.2010 - The court discussed the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.340, Finance Department, dated 26.08.2010 to the petitioner's case and emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in matters of pay refixation. The court highlighted the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' and the need for restraint in judicial interference with pay fixation and revision. The court also emphasized the technical nature of pay fixation and the requirement for expert evaluation, only allowing interference if patent illegality or violations are established.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought refixation of his basic pay as a typist based on G.O.Ms.No.340, Finance Department, dated 26.08.2010. The court considered the delay in the petitioner's appointment and the applicability of the government order to his case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.340, Finance Department, dated 26.08.2010, based on the detailed scrutiny by competent authorities. The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review and allowed the petitioner to approach the competent authorities with additional evidence for reconsideration.
Issues: The issues revolved around the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.340, Finance Department, dated 26.08.2010 to the petitioner's case, the delay in the petitioner's appointment, and the scope of judicial review in matters of pay refixation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' and the need for restraint in judicial interference with pay fixation and revision. It highlighted the technical nature of pay fixation and the requirement for expert evaluation, only allowing interference if patent illegality or violations are established.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with no costs, and the petitioner was allowed to approach the competent authorities with additional evidence for reconsideration.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent made in the proceedings Na.Ka.No.676/A/2015 dated 20.04.2018, quash the same and direct the respondents to fix the basic pay of the petitioner in the category of Typist at Rs.5960/- as on 07.09.2009 as per G.O.Ms.No.340, Finance Department, dated 26.08.2010 and to disburse the arrears of pay and allowances along with interest for the belated payment and thereafter to fix the pay of the petitioner in accordance with the Seventh Pay Commission Recommendations.)
1. The writ on hand has been filed questioning the validity of the order impugned dated 20.04.2018, rejecting the claim of the petitioner to re-fix his basic pay in the category of Typist at Rs.5,960/- as on 07.09.2009 as per G.O.Ms.No.340, Finance Department, dated 26.08.2010.
2. The petitioner states that he was selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of typist in Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service. He was selected on 08.12.2008, however, there was a delay in issuing an order of appointment and the petitioner joined the service on 07.09.2009 as typist in the office of the Principal, Government Fine Arts College, Kumbakonam.
3. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that an One Man Commission was appointed to rectify the pay anomaly and based on the recommendations of the One Man Commission, the Government issued G.O.(Ms).No.340, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 26.08.2010. The petitioner is falling under the purview of the Government Order and therefore, he is eligible for refixation of pay in the category of typist in order to rectify the anomaly on par with his juniors.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the benefit of revised pay, based on G.O.(Ms).No.340, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 26.08.2010, was granted to the similarly placed persons including the typists working in other departments, who were selected along with the writ petitioner in the year 2008. Thus, the petitioner is also to be extended the same benefit. The reason stated in the order impugned is not in accordance with the spirit of G.O.(Ms).No.340, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 26.08.2010 and thus, the said benefit is to be extended.
5. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents objected the said contention by stating that the case of the petitioner was considered in detail by the competent authorities. However, it was found that he was appointed on 07.09.2009 and therefore not falling under the purview of the G.O.(Ms).No.340 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 26.08.2010, for the purpose of granting refixation of pay in the cadre of Typist.
6. It is contended that the Government order issued in G.O.(Ms).No.340 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 26.08.2010 is not applicable to the writ petitioner.
7. The report submitted by the first respondent pursuant to the order of this Court dated 22.03.2022 in W.P.No.22787 of 2018 reveals that G.O.Ms.No.340 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 26.08.2010 as an exception to the general rule and the same is issued to remove the Pay Anomaly and Pay Disparity between the Senior and Junior selected in the same batch of selection who happen to receive the appoint order at different dates and able to join before 01.06.2009 in some cases and in other cases the Senior, who obtained more marks/rank-wise in the selection process were happened to join after 01.06.2009 and consequently lost their benefit of Fitment Table – multiplying factor of 1.86 and consequently drew lessor pay than the junior who were given the benefit of Fitment Table, such anomalies has to be removed. Therefore the One Man Commission has recommended the removal of such pay anomaly. Since the implementation of the recommendations of One Man Commission involves order of relaxation of rule, the Government of T
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in matters of pay refixation, emphasizing the technical nature of pay fixation and the requirement for expert ....
The court established that pay anomalies must be corrected retrospectively to uphold the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Recovery cannot be initiated beyond the period of five years from the allegedly offending event.
Acceptance of conditions at the time of revision precludes challenging the revision and recovery. Scope of government orders must be considered in determining applicability to specific positions.
The binding nature of an employee's undertaking regarding the recovery of excess pay and the authority of competent authorities to re-fix pay scale based on applicable Pay Rules and Government Orders....
Employees whose selection process concludes but who join duty after the cut-off date due to administrative reasons are entitled to notional pay fitment benefits under relevant government orders.
The central legal point established is that any order affecting the rights of an employee, such as pay re-fixation and recovery, should be passed only after providing an opportunity for the employee ....
The central legal point established is that any order affecting the rights of an employee, such as the fixation of pay, should be passed only after affording an opportunity for hearing to the employe....
The central legal point established is that any order affecting the rights of an employee should be passed only after affording an opportunity to the employee concerned, in accordance with the princi....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
