The court affirmed that the petitioner was entitled to personal pay under the relevant Government Order, rejecting claims of entitlement based on position and discriminatory practices.

ORDER :

C.Saravanan, J.

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the Impugned Order/ Communication dated 21.01.2014 of the 1^st respondent Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation represented by its Managing Director dated 21.01.2014 whereby it has been ordered that the petitioner will not be entitled to personal pay for the period between 08.04.2001 and 31.03.2012, latter date being the date of superannuation of the petitioner.

2. The Impugned Order / Communication dated 21.01.2014 has been passed in response to a representation dated 25.10.2013 of the petitioner. Operative portion of the Impugned Communication dated 21.01.2014 reads as under:-

3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed by the respondents Corporation as a Bill Clerk in the year 1976. The petitioner was later promoted as a Junior Assistant in the year 2007. The petitioner retired from the service as a Junior Assistant on 31.03.2012 on attaining the age of superannuation.

4. The petitioner was given personal pay of 5% pursuant to G.O. (Ms) No.664, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 24.08.1992 for a sum of Rs.25,028/-.

5. There was an Audit Objection pursuant to which recovery was made by the 1^st respondent on 08.04.2001 for a sum of Rs.25,028/- while in service. Similar recoveries were made in respect of other employees as well across the State.

6. It appears that this Court had interfered and therefore a decision was taken by the 1^st respondent in Circular.Sl.No.61 of 2009 (Rc.AE11/25629/06) dated 25.08.2009 to refund the amount that was recovered from the employees concerned (including the petitioner).

7. Thus, the amount that was recovered to the petitioner earlier till 07.04.2001 was refunded back pursuant to the aforesaid Circular.Sl.No.61 of 2009 (Rc.AE11/25629/06) dated 25.08.2009. However, the respondents have declined to give personal pay to the petitioner for the period thereafter between 08.04.2001 to 31.03.2012 citing the Audit Objection in the Impugned Order / Communication.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a decision of this Court rendered on 09.10.2009 in W.P.No.6510 of 2005 in the case of M.Ramakrishnan Vs. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited , Represented by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director and another wherein, the above Circular had held that the respondents cannot deny the personal pay that was sanctioned in terms of G.O. (Ms) No.664, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 24.08.1992.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner in any event had satisfied the relevant criteria for grant of personal pay at 5% of the basic pay commuted as on 01.08.1992 as per the above Government Order.

10. Alternatively, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the petitioner was promoted as a Junior Assistant in the year 2007, the benefit of personal pay in terms of the aforesaid Government Order cannot be denied till the date of retirement of the petitioner.

11. Defending the stand of the respondents, the learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that the petitioner was only a Bill Clerk appointed in the Civil Supplies Department on 10.11.1976 and that the work of a Bill Clerk was seasonal in nature. It is submitted that the petitioner was permanently appointed as a Junior Assistant only on 25.01.2007. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner was not entitled to personal pay for the period till the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.664, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 24.08.1992.

12. The learned counsel for the first respondent would specifically draw attention to Paragraph No.2 of the aforesaid Government Order, wherein, reference has been made to the grievance of the Record Clerks, Junior Assistants, Assistants and Superintendents. It is submitted that during the period in dispute, the petitioner was neither a Record Clerk nor a Junior Ass