ORDER

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the 1st respondent to consider the representation submitted by the writ petitioner on 10.03.2016 to revise the scale of pay in the post of Assistant Elementary Educational Officer and pay the consequential monetary benefits in the light of G.O.(Ms)No.242, Finance (CMPC) Department, dated 23.09.2015.

2.The petitioner was initially appointed as Higher Grade Teacher on

01.01.1971 and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher. The petitioner was promoted up to the level of Assistant Elementary Educational Officer and retired from service on 31.01.2006.

3.The grievances of the writ petitioner is that the grade pay as admissible pursuant to the 6th Pay Commission recommendation was not granted to him. The petitioner states that the Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- ought to have been granted to the writ petitioner who was holding the post of Assistant Elementary Educational Officer as on 31.01.2006. However, the petitioner was granted lesser grade pay of Rs.4700/- which is applicable to the cadre of Assistant Elementary Educational Officer.

4.Even as per the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition the sacle of pay applicable to the post of Assistant Elementary Educational Officer as per the 6th Pay Commission recommendation w.e.f. 01.01.2006 was Rs.9300 – 34800 – 4700. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that one Mr.James retired Assistant Elementary Educational Officer who filed W.P.(MD)No.11332 of 2011 was granted the benefit of the grade pay of Rs.4900/- in G.O.Ms.No.242, Finance Department, dated 23.09.2015 and the benefit already granted to the said James is to be extended to the writ petitioner. Pursuant to the said Government Order reveals that the Government issued order based on the Contempt Petition No.1717 of 2014 filed by Thiru.K.James to implement the order dated 11.08.2015 in W.P.(MD)No.11332 of 2014.

5.Thus, it is clear that based on the order passed in the writ petition and based on the contempt petition filed, the Government issued orders. Question arises, whether such an order passed in favour of an individual be extended to all the employees who retired as Assistant Elementary Educational Officer.

6.First of all, the petitioner was allowed to retire from service on

31.01.2006. His pension was fixed based on the last pay drawn and accordingly, he was receiving the pension. The petitioner approached this Court after a lapse of about ten years from the date of retirement and citing an order passed in favour of an individual. Therefore, the petitioner was a fence-sitter and approached this Court after a lapse of ten years from the date of retirement. Such an act cannot be entertained. That apart, the correctness of the scale of pay cannot be now tested as the scale of pay applicable to the post of Assistant Elementary Educational Officer was fixed in favour of the writ petitioner with reference to the 6th Pay Commission recommendations w.e.f. 01.01.2006.

7.Regarding the citing of similar orders filed by the petitioner, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Director of Sericulture Department vs. K.Kumar, reported in 2015 (4) CTC 241 held as follows:

34. It is true that constituency helps the parties to a litigation to know where they stand. But, when it is brought to the notice of the Court that on most of the earlier occasions, several similarly placed employees obtained Orders at the stage of admission, on the ground that the issue is already covered by a decision of this Court and that it was only in this manner that several employees got a benefit that was not legitimately due to them, the Court cannot shut its eyes and choose to prefer maintenance of discipline rather than upholding public interests.

35. As a matter of fact, the greatness of the Court lies only in its courage and ability to correct its mistakes. Justice is more precious than discipline. This was the principle that the Supreme Court highlighted in A