Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 3496
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
M. Sampoornam - Appellant
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Secretary to Government, Chennai & Others - Respondent
WP No. 19437 of 2018
Decided On : 29-09-2022
For the Petitioner:M. Ravi, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1 to R3 & R5, M. Rajendiran, Additional Government Pleader, R4, J. Sreevidya, Advocate.
The Competent Authority has the discretion to relax rules in favor of employees, and the court will consider the circumstances of delay in the declaration of probation when assessing claims for benefits.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Service Benefits - Tamil Nadu General and Subordinate Service Rules, Rule 23-A - Rule 8-A - Delay in Declaration of Probation - Notional Benefits - Financial Benefits - Settlement of Terminal and Pensionary Benefits
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner, the wife of a deceased government servant, filed a writ petition seeking the fixation of her husband's pay, annual increments, and pensionary benefits from 1982 onwards. The petitioner claimed that her husband's pay was not correctly fixed in 1982 and that he suffered monetary loss due to erroneous pay fixation. The respondent authorities had already settled all terminal and pensionary benefits due to the deceased employee, including arrears of pay and allowances, leave salary, death cum gratuity, and family pension.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased husband did not pass the requisite tests during his probation period, resulting in a delay in the declaration of his probation. However, the Competent Authority relaxed the rules in his favor and granted notional and financial benefits with effect from 2004. The court concluded that the relief sought in the writ petition had no merit and dismissed the petition.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's claim for the fixation of her husband's pay, annual increments, and pensionary benefits from 1982 onwards, as well as the delay in the declaration of probation and the settlement of terminal and pensionary benefits by the respondent authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay in the declaration of probation was due to the deceased husband's failure to pass the requisite tests, and the Competent Authority had appropriately relaxed the rules in his favor, granting the necessary benefits. As a result, the relief sought in the writ petition was deemed to have no merit.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to (1) fix the pay of the petitioner's husband as on 10.09.1982 and sanction annual increments (2) re-fix his pay in the selection/special grades with effect from 10.08.1992 and 10.08.2002 (3) revise his pensionary benefits on that basis consequent on his re-fixation on 31.08.2013 (4) Sanction compound interest at 12% per annum for the delayed payment of arrears for the period from 28.05.2004 to 31.08.2013 and also (5) disburse the arrears of payment from 10.09.1982 to 27.05.2004 and pension from 01.09.2013 till 26.08.2014.)
1. The Writ of Mandamus is filed to direct the respondents to (1) fix the pay of the petitioner's husband as on 10.09.1982 and sanction annual increments (2) re-fix his pay in the selection/special grades with effect from 10.08.1992 and 10.08.2002 (3) revise his pensionary benefits on that basis consequent on his re-fixation on 31.08.2013 (4) Sanction compound interest at 12% per annum for the delayed payment of arrears for the period from 28.05.2004 to 31.08.2013 and also (5) disburse the arrears of payment from 10.09.1982 to 27.05.2004 and pension from 01.09.2013 till 26.08.2014.
2. The writ petitioner filed the present writ petition at the age of 60 years and the petitioner is not an employee.
3. The writ petitioner filed the present writ petition to claim the benefits of her deceased husband. The husband of the writ petitioner Mr.N.Jothilingam joined as Village Administrative Officer on 10.08.1982 and retired from service on 31.08.2013.
4. The husband of the writ petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 20.01.1984. He filed O.A.No.2639 of 1990 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and pursuant to the interim stay granted by the Tribunal, the order of suspension was revoked and he rejoined duty on 01.01.1991 i.e., after 7 years from the date of suspension.
5. A criminal case was registered against the husband of the writ petitioner and the said case ended with an order of acquittal. The departmental disciplinary proceedings and the charges framed against the writ petitioner was also quashed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.Nos.5992 of 1993 and 5815 of 1995. The husband of the writ petitioner filed WP No.23058 of 2009 and this Court directed the Authorities to regularise the period of suspension.
6. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the probation was not declared on completion of two years of period and the petitioner suffered an order of suspension during the relevant point of time. Therefore, the pay of the writ petitioner was not correctly fixed in the year 1982. Even subsequently, the petitioner sustained monetary loss on account of erroneous fixation of pay.
7. In this regard, the petitioner's husband submitted a representation to fix the pay as on 10.09.1982 and sanction annual increment. Further representation was submitted to grant revision of pay in the Selection Grade and Special Grade with effect from 1982 and 2002 respectively. The husband of the writ petitioner died in the year 2014 and therefore, the present writ petition is filed by the writ petitioner 4 years after the death of her husband.
8. The petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased employee, cannot agitate the service conditions of her husband, more specifically, with reference to the year of 1982. If at all, any erroneous fixation of family pension or pensionary benefits, the spouse of the employee can agitate the matter and file a writ petition before the High Court. With reference to the fixation of pay of the year 1982 and grant of annual increments, an employee who was alive till the year 2014 ought to have redressed the same. However, the petitioner filed the present writ petition after a lapse of 4 years from the date of the death of the deceased employee seeking re-fixation of pay of her husband from the year 1982 onwards
