The right to claim correct salary throughout the tenure of service cannot be defeated on account of delay, but the conscious decision of an employee not to exercise an option within a stipulated time can impact the court's decision.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in his Memo.No.035654/G.17/G.171/2015, dated 20.06.2016 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to accept the petitioner''s revised option for fixation of the revised payscales with effect from 30.03.1994.)

(1) The writ petition has been filed in the nature of a certiorarified mandamus seeking records relating to the order passed by the 2nd respondent, Chief Engineer / Personnel, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tamil Nadu Generation and Electricity Distribution Corporation Limited [TANGEDCO], Chennai in Memo No.035654/G.17/G171/2015 dated 20.06.2016 and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to accept the revised option of the petitioner for fixation of revised pay scale with effect from 30.03.1994.

(2) The petitioner had been originally appointed as Technical Assistant in the respondent Corporation/Board on 07.12.1987. After he had obtained B.E.Degree, he was selected as Assistant Engineer by an internal selection and joined duty as Assistant Engineer on 30.03.1994. He was then promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer on 13.02.2006. At the time when the writ petition was filed, he was working as Assistant Executive Engineer under the control of Superintending Engineer, Chennai North. He was however, also under suspension at the time of filing of the writ petition.

(3) He was under suspension at the time of filing of writ petition consequent to an FIR registered against him in Crime No.08/AC/2011/CC-1 under Sections 7 and 13[2] read with 13[1][d] of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1989 for alleged receipt of bribe amount.

(4) The petitioner claimed that the respondents, by a Board Proceedings in BP [FB] No.6[SB] dated 07.01.1995, had given an option to the employees, particularly those who were in service as Assistant Engineers and had been so selected by internal selection as on 30.03.1994, to get revised pay scale. The petitioner was eligible to exercise such option. Such option would come into effect from 1992, on the date of joining in the officers'' cadre. However, there was a rider and a caveat placed by the respondents that the employees should exercise such option within a period of two months.

(5) It is the specific case of the petitioner herein that the petitioner was not served with any notice of such offer made by the respondents and therefore, he had not exercised that particular option. On the other hand, during argument, a parallel relief was sought to be placed equal to another employee who joined the service on 16.12.1985 and who had exercised such option within a period of two months, therefore, is benefited by drawing a higher scale of pay. Seeking that there must be relaxation of the said two months within which such option should be exercised, the petitioner had given a representation on 03.04.2015. The Impugned Order came to be passed on 20.06.2016 rejecting the request made by the petitioner herein.

(6) In the Impugned Order, the respondents had very specifically stated that if such permission is granted to the petitioner who had not exercised that particular option within the stipulated period of two months, it would open flood gates to other employees also who had not exercised that particular option. It had also been stated that his request for permitting revised option for 1992 Wage Revision had already been rejected and had already been informed by a Board Memo dated 23.09.2010. The petitioner had not questioned that particular order dated 23.09.2010, but had given a subsequent representation after about six years on 09.06.2016 and the Impugned Order which came to be passed on 20.06.2016, had been questioned by him in the present writ petition.

(7) No reason has been given as to why he had not exercised that particular option within the stipulated p