IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT :

S.M. Subramaniam J.

(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records in connection with the impugned order of recovery passed by the 2nd respondent in ROC No.39 / 2020 - A dated 07/02/2020 and the consequential downward revision order passed by the 3rd respondent in No.AG (A and E) PEN PO2 / 10226170 /1 RO222844 /167 dated 02/11/2020 and to quash the same.)

1. The lis on hand has been instituted questioning the validity of the re-fixation of pay and the consequential recovery imposed on the writ petitioner in proceeding dated 07.02.2020 and the consequential revision of pay issued in proceeding dated 02.11.2020.

2. The petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Reader on 19.08.1998 in Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Services. She was promoted to the posts of Junior Assistant, Assistant, Bench Clerk Grade-II and finally, to the post of Interpretor to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrates Court at Chennai.

3. The petitioner made a representation to the authorities seeking revision of pay scale based on G.O.Ms.No.291, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 26.08.2010. Since it was not considered, the petitioner filed W.P.No.12374 of 2018. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court passed final orders on 05.06.2018 in W.P.No.12374 of 2018, directing the respondents therein to look into the representation submitted by the petitioner on 04.11.2017 and pass appropriate orders.

4. Pursuant to the representation and based on the directions issued by the High Court to consider the representation, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, passed an order in proceeding dated 14.08.2018, revising the scale of pay of the petitioner based on G.O.Ms.No.291, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 26.08.2010. Pertinently, while granting revision of pay in proceeding dated 14.08.2018, the authority competent imposed a condition that "The individual is informed that if the pay fixation is found to be incorrect or in excess in future, the entire amount drawn in excess will be recovered in one lump sum".

5. The Audit Wing of the High Court raised an objection regarding the revision of pay effected in favour of the petitioner based on the G.O.Ms.No.291, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 26.08.2010. Based on the audit objection, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the writ petitioner, seeking her explanations and to provide an opportunity to her. The petitioner submitted a representation. Finally, the respondent passed the impugned order in proceeding dated 07.02.2020, cancelling the fixation done in proceeding dated 14.10.2018. Consequential, recovery order has also been passed. Thus, the present writ petition came to be instituted.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S.Sivakumar would submit that the petitioner submitted a representation to implement G.O.Ms.No.291, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 26.08.2010, by extending the benefit of revised scale of pay since she was promoted to the post of Interpretor. The revised scale of pay for the post of Interpretor was Rs.15600-39100+5400 G.P. (Grade Pay). It is not in dispute that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Interpretor from the post of Bench Clerk Grade II. Since the Government ordered revision of pay for the post of Interpretor, the case of the petitioner was considered and thus, there is no infirmity. The reason stated in the order impugned regarding the objection is untenable. The reason stated that the revision effected in accordance with the G.O.Ms.No.291, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 26.08.2010, to the High Court employees is also incorrect since, G.O.Ms.No.291, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 26.08.2010 stipulates that the revision of scale of pay is applicable to the employees other than High Court. Thus, the writ petition is to be considered.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 & 2, Mr.B.Vijay, would oppose by stating that the Government