SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Mad) 805

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, K. RAJASEKAR, JJ.
G. Malathi – Appellant
Versus
The Family Court Judge, Family Court, Villupuram & Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 20202 of 2019
Decided on : 15-03-2024

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :R.V. Rajkumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:V. Balamurugan, V. Vijayshankar, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the principles of fixation of pay in Selection Grade/Special Grade and the consistent policy of restricting the pay of the Selection Grade of the lower post to the pay of the Ordinary Grade Promotional post.

Headnote:

Selection Grade - Pay Scale Revision - G.O.234 dated 01.06.2009, G.O.956, G.O.45, Govt.letter dated 08.11.2010 - The court discussed the revision of pay scale of the petitioner, the principles of fixation of pay in Selection Grade/Special Grade, and the consistent policy of restricting the pay of the Selection Grade of the lower post to the pay of the Ordinary Grade Promotional post.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner's pay scale was revised, and an audit objection was raised, leading to the order of recovery. The petitioner sought to quash the order and claimed refund of the recovered amount with interests and pension based on Selection Grade as Rs.4200/-.

Finding of the Court:

The court confirmed the revision of scale of pay but set aside the recovery of excess salary, considering the hardship it would cause to the petitioner.

Issues: The main issue was the revision of pay scale and the subsequent recovery ordered by the Accountant General of Tamil Nadu.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles of fixation of pay in Selection Grade/Special Grade as per G.O.234 dated 01.06.2009, G.O.956, G.O.45, and Govt.letter dated 08.11.2010, and the consistent policy of restricting the pay of the Selection Grade of the lower post to the pay of the Ordinary Grade Promotional post.

Final Decision: The recovery of excess salary was set aside, and the writ petition was partly allowed with no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT :

S.M. Subramaniam, J.

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by 3rd respondent in No.AG (A & E)/PEN P02/2/10224367, dated 25.04.2019 and the consequential order of recovery passed by the 1st respondent in office order No.76/2019, dated 08.07.2019 and quash both the orders and direct the respondents to refund the recovered amount of Rs.4,65,159/- with interests and to provide pension by taking the petitioner's Selection Grade as Rs.4200/-.)

1. The revision of scale of pay of the petitioner restricting his pay as applicable to the next level promotional post as done by the Accountant General of Tamil Nadu is sought to be quashed in the present writ proceedings.

2. The petitioner joined as Senior Bailiff/Bailiff on 20.12.1995 carrying the scale of pay to Rs.975-1660 as per the 5th Pay Commission scale of pay. Pursuant to the 1998 Pay Rules, the scale of Pay of the petitioner was re-fixed as Rs.3200-85-4800. On completion of 10 years of service, the petitioner was awarded Selection Grade with effect from 24.12.2005 carrying pay as Rs.4000-100-6000. After implementation of the Pay Rules of the year 2009, the scale of pay of Senior Bailiff was re-fixed as Rs.5200-20200+2000 Grade Pay and on the recommendation of the One Man Commission, it was further revised as Rs.5200-20220+2400 Grade Pay.

3. In lieu of Selection Grade/Special Grade, 3% increment was provided to the employees for those who are awarded Selection Grade after 01.06.2009. Accordingly, the pay of the writ petitioner was revised and he was continuously receiving the said scale of pay without any interruption. Suddenly, an audit objection was raised stating that the revision of pay granted to the writ petitioner was erroneous and in violation of the Pay Rules and the Government Orders issued. The Selection Grade scale of pay fixed in favour of the petitioner was over and above the scale of pay of the next level promotional post. Therefore, the pay of the petitioner is to be restricted to the next level promotional post of the Senior Bailiff. Pursuant to the Audit Objection, consequential revision of pay was ordered by the Accountant General of Tamil Nadu and recovery was ordered. The said order passed by the Accountant General of Tamil Nadu in proceeding dated 25.04.2019 came to be challenged in the present writ petition.

4. Mr.V.Rajmumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that there is no promotion from the post of Senior Bailiff to the post of Assistant. There are promotional opportunities to the post of Senior Bailiff but by way of transfer of service to category-V class IV in the Judicial Ministerial Service Rules. In the present case, the petitioner was awarded Selection Grade in the post of Senior Bailiff. Therefore, the pay initially fixed on award of Selection Grade was found to be erroneous and over and above the scale of pay applicable to the next level promotion post.

5. The Accountant General of Tamil Nadu filed a Counter affidavit stating that the disputed issues is no longer res integra for it has been stood determined authoritatively on 11.02.2021 by the First Bench of the High Court of Madras in the case of Shri N Ramakrishnan (WA No.312/2020). Following the Judgment dated 11.02.2021, the First Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the pleas of similarly placed petitioners on 15.03.2022, in a batch of [W.P Nos.5872, 20185, 20222, 20228, 15432, 15433 and 17540 of 2021 (Sri J.Gnanaprakasam and others)]. The claim of the petitioner is not admissible of this short ground alone.

6. The Counter Affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent/Accountant General reveals the following:

    4. ..... subsequent to the implementation of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 2009 (implemented under G.O.Ms.No.234 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 01.06.2009), the Government of Tamil Nadu introduced t

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      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

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top