IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 12.02.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR W.P.No . 10868 of 202 1 S.Pandi ... Petitioner vs

1. Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, No.132, Commissioner Office Buildings, EVK Sampath Road, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.

3. The Joint Commissioner of Police, West Zone, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai – 600 058. … Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the third respondent by his proceedings vide RC.No.Pay Fixation/423/24319/2016 dated 09.07.2019 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to award revised Selection Grade Scale of Pay to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2006 in the light of the G.O.Ms.No.234 Finance (PC)

Department dated 01.06.2009 and pass orders.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ramadoss For Respondents : Mrs.V.Yamunadevi Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents and perused the records.

2. The petitioner, by the present writ petition, has assailed the action of the respondents in not granting him the revised Selection Grade Pay pursuant to 6^th Pay Commission and the recommendations of the One Man Commission dated 08.11.2010, despite the petitioner was promoted to Selection Grade in the year

2002 and to Special Grade in the year 2012.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that seeking grant of the revised Selection Grade Pay, he had approached the third respondent and submitted a representation dated 04.11.2016 to fix his pay in Selection Grade category as Junior Assistant with Grade Pay as per G.O.Ms.No.45 Finance (RC) Department dated 10.02.2011 and Government letter dated 08.11.2010 with consequential direction to pay the arrears.

4. Petitioner contended that the aforesaid request made by the petitioner has been rejected by the third respondent under the impugned proceedings dated 09.07.2019 whereby the third respondent while claiming that the petitioner is not entitled for getting his pay revised in Special Grade, as he has moved to Special Grade Pay only on 22.05.2012 i.e., after introduction of New Pay Scale on

01.06.2009.

5. On behalf of the petitioner, it is further contended that the respondents while claiming that the petitioner is not eligible for revision pay of selection grade however, had stated that he is eligible only for sanction of two increments (3% +

3%) on the pay drawn by him on 22.05.2012.

6. The petitioner now contends that though he had assailed the action of the respondents authorities in rejecting his claim for revising the Grade Pay in Special Grade by the impugned proceedings on the above ground, he is not pursuing the said claim any further and is confining the relief sought for in the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to grant two increments ie., (3% +3%) on the pay drawn by him on 22.05.2012, as stated by them in the impugned order.

7. On behalf of the petitioner, it is further contended that the aforesaid stand taken by the third respondent while rejecting the representation of the petitioner under the impugned order has also been reiterated in the counter affidavit filed by them into this Court, particularly, with reference to the statement made in Paragraph No.9 thereon.

8. Thus, the petitioner contends that he is only seeking a direction to, the respondents to sanction the two increments on the pay drawn by him on

22.05.2012 at the earliest.

9. The counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents is filed.

10. The learned Special Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents while seeking to sustain the impugned order would submit that the petitioner is not entitled for being granted revised Scale o