Statutory authorities have a duty to consider representations made to them, and non-consideration amounts to dereliction of duty.

Headnote:
SERVICE LAW - GRANT OF SELECTION GRADE AND SPECIAL GRADE - REVISION OF SCALE OF PAY - REFUND OF RECOVERED AMOUNT - REPRESENTATION - CONSIDERATION BY STATUTORY AUTHORITY - DUTY TO CONSIDER AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS - NON-CONSIDERATION AMOUNTS TO DERELICTION OF DUTY - DIRECTION TO CONSIDER REPRESENTATION WITHIN STIPULATED TIME
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, initially appointed as Junior Assistant in 1987, was promoted as Assistant in 2008 and granted Selection Grade on the same day. After retirement in 2023, the fifth respondent erroneously cancelled the Selection Grade and recovered the excess amount. The petitioner's representation seeking refund and revision of pay scale was not considered by the respondents.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the non-consideration of the petitioner's representation by the statutory authority amounted to dereliction of duty and directed the respondents to consider the representation within 12 weeks.
Issues: 1. Whether the statutory authority has a duty to consider representations made to it.2. Whether the non-consideration of a representation amounts to dereliction of duty.
Ratio Decidendi: Whenever a representation is made to a statutory authority, there is a duty cast upon the respondents to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. As such, non-consideration of the representation by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty and hence, this Court will be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India and direct the respondents to consider the same within a stipulated time.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to grant Selection Grade in the cadre of Assistant w.e.f. 11.04.2008 and Special Grade in the cadre of Assistant w.e.f., 11.04.2018 and revise the scale of pay in the cadre of Superintendent and to direct the respondents to refund the recovered amount from the petitioner along with interest, by considering the petitioner's representation, dated 09.01.2024 within the period stipulated by this Court.

2.By consent of both parties, considering the limited relief sought for by the petitioner, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

3.Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. Perused the materials on record.

4.The petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Assistant on

15.04.1987 in Agriculture Department, Thanjavur. On completion of 10 years, she was granted with Selection Grade on 15.04.1997 and after completion of 20 years, she was granted with Special Grade on 15.04.2007. She was promoted as Assistant on 11.04.2008 and granted with Selection Grade on the same day, ie., 11.04.2008. After attaining the age of superannuation, she retired from service on 31.07.2023. The fifth respondent erroneously cancelled the selection grade in the cadre of Assistant, which was granted to the petitioner on the same day of promotion and recovered the excess amount. The second respondent vide proceedings, dated 02.03.2020 rejected the petitioner's claim seeking to grant Selection Grade in the cadre of Assistant. On 09.01.2024, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents requesting to refund the recovered amount with interest and revise the scale of pay in the cadre of Superintendent. Though her representation was duly acknowledged, the same was not considered. Hence, this writ petition came to be filed.

5. It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this nature is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon the respondents to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. As such, non-consideration of the representation by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty and hence, this Court will be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India and direct the respondents to consider the same within a stipulated time.

6.Considering the limited scope of the relief sought for by the petitioner, without going into the merits of the case, this Court hereby direct the respondents 3 to 5 to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated

09.01.2024 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of twelve (12) weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7.With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

26.02.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes PNM To

1. The Secretary to Government, Finance Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

2. The Principal Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

3. The Commissioner, Agriculture Production Department, Head Office, Chennai 600 009.

4. The Director, Agriculture Production Department, Chepakkam, Chennai 600 005.

5. The Joint Director of Agriculture Department, Kaattuthottam, Marriyamman Kovil Post, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

PNM ORDER IN W.P.(MD).No.4432 of 2024

26.02.2024

Click Here to Read the rest of this document