Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Ms. Justice P.T. ASHA
M.Balasubramanian – Appellant
Versus
The Special Secretary to Government – Respondent
W.P.No.4878 of 2021
(A) Service Law - Special Pay - Pension - Government Orders - The court considered whether a retired employee, who served in a special location (Tamil Nadu House, New Delhi) and was denied revised special pay for pension calculation because he retired before the effective date of a restoration order, is entitled to the benefit. Held that the reduction of special pay from 20% to 10% had monetary effect only from 01.10.2017, and the restoration to 20% (G.O.Ms.No.409) was a special case recognizing the unique nature of work and disadvantages. The petitioner, who retired on 30.06.2016, should not suffer loss during the interim period when the reduction had not yet taken effect; the restoration applies to all employees in that location, including those who retired between 01.01.2016 and 30.09.2017, as only two employees were affected and no cascading effect would occur. (Paras 14-17)
(B) Policy Decisions - Judicial Review - Courts may interfere when a policy decision leads to arbitrary or discriminatory results, especially when the decision affects a small number of employees and the rationale for restoration applies equally to them. (Paras 16-17)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a retired Accounts Officer who served on deputation at Tamil Nadu House, New Delhi, was entitled to Special Pay of 20% of basic pay. After pay revision, G.O.Ms.No.304 (13.10.2017) halved this to 10% with effect from 01.10.2017. Later, G.O.Ms.No.409 (24.12.2018) restored 20% as a special case for all employees in Tamil Nadu House, also from 01.10.2017. The petitioner retired on 30.06.2016, before these orders. His request for pension calculation based on 20% revised basic pay was rejected on the ground that the restoration applied only from 01.10.2017 and he had already retired.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the monetary loss from the reduction should not have applied to the petitioner because the revised pay had only notional effect from 01.01.2016 with monetary benefit from 01.10.2017. Since G.O.Ms.No.409 recognized the special circumstances of employees in Tamil Nadu House and restored 20% as a special case, the petitioner, who served during that period, is equally entitled. The court also noted that only two employees were affected, and allowing the claim would not have a cascading effect.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner is entitled to 20% Special Pay for pension calculation despite retiring before the effective date of G.O.Ms.No.409, and whether the cut-off date of 01.10.2017 was arbitrary.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the reduction in special pay was not applied during the petitioner's service (since monetary effect started from 01.10.2017), and the subsequent restoration recognized the continuing special nature of work. Denying the benefit to those who retired during the interim period would be unjust and discriminatory, especially when only two employees were impacted.
Result : Writ petition allowed. Impugned order quashed. The first respondent directed to include 20% revised basic pay as Special Pay for calculating pension and other retirement benefits, and to settle arrears, if any. No costs.
ORDER
The above writ petition is filed for the following relief :
“ To issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records connected with the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Letter No.17509/Allowances/2021, dated 24.5.2021 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to include 20% of the revised basic pay as Special Pay for the purpose of calculation of pension and other retirement benefits of the petitioner and revise and refix the pension and other retirement benefits of the petitioner.”
2. The petitioner before this Court is a retired Accounts Officer who served in the Office of the Principal Resident Commissioner, Tamil Nadu House, New Delhi. The petitioner was recruited through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. He was initially appointed as Junior Assistant in Tamil Nadu Treasuries and Accounts Department, on 14.05.1985 and thereafter was promoted as Accountant, Sub Treasury Officer, Assistant Accountants Officer and finally as Accounts Officer. The petitioner has blemishless record of service.
3. The petitioner would submit that during his tenure as Accounts Officer, he was on deputation to the Tamil Nadu House at New Delhi, by orders of the third respondent dated 08.06.2015. He served in the Tamil Nadu House, New Delhi for a period of one year and had superannuated on 30.06.2016. The petitioner would submit that as per the service conditions, he was entitled to Special Pay, which is 20% of the basic pay. This benefit was extended to the staff serving in the Tamil Nadu House, New Delhi, taking into account the unique and special nature of work and the place of work which is very distant from Tamil Nadu, the cost of living at New Delhi which is very high when compared to Tamil Nadu and also the expenditure that a person has to undergo owing to the extreme climatic condition at New Delhi. The staff of the Tamil Nadu House, New Delhi are required to work round the clock, on shift basis.
4. The petitioner would submit that the employees who served in the Tamil Nadu House till 31.12.2015, were granted 20% of the basic pay as Special Pay. Thereafter, as per the recommendations of the Official Committee on pay revision, the revised pay scale was introduced by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.303 Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 11.10.2017, with notional effect from 01.01.2016 and with monetary benefits from 01.10.2017. Similarly based on the recommendations of the Official Committee, the Special Pay for the eligible employees was also revised in terms of G.O.Ms.No.304 (Finance Cell) dated 13.10.2017. In terms of the said G.O.Ms.No.304, the staff of Tamil Nadu House, New Delhi, was also granted the revised special pay, which was 10% of revised level pay. Vide this G.O., the Special Pay granted to the staff of Tamil Nadu House was reduced to 10% from 20% of basic pay, which was in vogue till then. This G.O., has taken effect from 01.10.2017. Subsequently, the Principal Resident Commissioner, Tamil Nadu House, New Delhi, had requested the Government to retain 20% of Special Pay in the revised pay structure to the staff of Tamil Nadu House, New Delhi, as a special case and the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.409, Finance (Allowances) Department, dated 24.12.2018, had considered the same and decided to grant Special Pay at 20% of the revised level pay.
5. The petitioner would submit that his basic pay was revised as per G.O.Ms.No.303 Finance Department dated 11.10.2017. However, his Special Pay which ought to have been 20% of his revised basic pay, was not taken into consideration while calculating his pension and other retirement benefits. Therefore, the petitioner has sought for refixation of pay with effect from 01.01.2016. The petitioner had submitted a detailed representation to the first respondent on 11.02.2019 addressing the anomaly in the pay structure and to extend the benefit of 20% of revised basic pay as the Special Pay for calculating his pension and retirement benefits. This was
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
