The proper interpretation of pay fixation rules under FR 22-B and associated rulings dictates that prior option exercised by a government servant must be adhered to, ensuring benefits are computed correctly without arbitrary adjustments.

ORDER :

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

Seeking refixation of pay at Rs.2050/= with effect from 01.10.1992 and for consequential sanction one annual increment and enhancement of pay and to grant all arrears of monetary benefits, including enhancement of monthly pension and to sanction all arrears on the basis of the recommendation of the 1st respondent, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that upon completion of two years training as per G.O. No.164, RDD dated 30.07.1992, though he was entitled two increments, however, the same was not granted, which resulted in his agitating his rights to the same before this Court in which he came out successful and accordingly two increments were granted and his pay was fixed at Rs.1800 + 10 (PP) along with 5% personal pay vide proceeding dated 9.7.2015 and his pay was fixed at Rs.1800 + 10 + 91 PP.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that upon his promotion as Extension Officer on 30.01.1992, as the time scale of pay in the higher post was the less than the pay drawn by him, the petitioner exercised his option to fix his pay in the higher post of Extension Officer after sanctioning one annual increment due on 01.10.1992 in the lower post of Resident Welfare Officer Grade-I. It is the further averment of the petitioner that if the pay is fixed in that manner, the petitioner would be entitled to have his pay fixed at Rs.2050/- as on 1.10.1992 in the post of Extension Officer, which has been recommended by the 1^st respondent to the 2^nd respondent vide proceeding dated 7.4.2022 for the purpose of fixing the pension, which would have to be fixed at Rs.9700/- from 31.7.2004, which was made by placing reliance upon FR 22-B. However, the 2^nd respondent rejected the recommendation of the 1st respondent and passed the impugned order dated 9.5.2022 and returned the file back to the 1st respondent.

4. It is the further averment of the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed without looking into the option exercised by the petitioner for having his pay fixed after sanctioning one increment in the lower post of Resident Welfare Officer Grade-I on 1.10.1992. It is the further averment of the petitioner that since two increments were given on 9.7.2015 and consequently pay was revised afterwards, the present revision could not be the subject matter of G.O. No.105 dated 9.12.2010 and, therefore, the present writ petition has been filed assailing the said rejection of fixation made by the 1st respondent.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the 2nd respondent had not properly looked into FR 22-B while fixing the pay of the petitioner, which has been properly done by the petitioner. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that even fixing the pay of the petitioner in the manner as done by the 2^nd respondent, it crossed the threshold of the the time scale and once it is beyond the particular time scale, necessarily, the next increment in the time scale ought to be given to the petitioner, which has been properly done by the 1^st respondent. However, the said aspect has not been properly appreciated by the 2^nd respondent leading to the erroneous rejection of the fixation.

6. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the pay has been properly fixed by the 1st respondent, but the 2nd respondent has not properly looked into the option exercised by the petitioner to have his increment granted in the lower post and, thereafter, to have his increments fixed in the higher promoted post, which w