IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR and M.P.Nos.1, 2 & 3 of 2014 P.Killivalavan Assistant Queen Mary’s College Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. ...Petitioner Vs.

1.Principal Accountant General Office of the Principal Accountant General (Accounts & Entitlements) Tamil Nadu

381, Anna Salai Chennai 600 010.

2.Director of Collegiate Education Thirunelveli Thirunelveli 627 003.

3.Queen Mary’s College Rep.by its Principal Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. ...Respondents Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings No.Pen 11/IV/13-14/11113467/ADK/144 dated 26.05.2014 issued by the 1^st respondent and consequential Proceeding No. P11/21113467/ 3/PPO No.R1113467/EDG dated 12.09.2014 issued by the 1^st Respondent, quash the same and direct the 1^st respondent to pay the pension by taking the pension emoluments at Rs.18,650/- i.e. basic pay of 14,250 + grade pay of Rs.4,400 and other terminal benefits as recommended by the 3^rd respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Subramanian For Respondents : M/s.Hema Muralikrishnan Standing Counsel for R1 Mr.Vadivelu Deenadayalan for R2 & R3 Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

The petitioner has sought for the following relief:-

“To call for the records pertaining to the proceedings No.Pen 11/IV/13-

14/11113467/ADK/144 dated 26.05.2014 issued by the 1^st respondent and consequential Proceeding No. P11/21113467/ 3/PPO No.R1113467/EDG dated 12.09.2014 issued by the 1^st Respondent, quash the same and direct the 1^st respondent to pay the pension by taking the pension emoluments at Rs.18,650/- i.e. basic pay of 14,250 + grade pay of Rs.4,400 and other terminal benefits as recommended by the 3^rd respondent.”

2. By the impugned proceedings, the first respondent has taken the Grade Pay of the petitioner as Rs.2800/- for the purpose of computing pension and pensionary benefits.

3. The petitioner was initially appointed as Lab Assistant and the petitioner was awarded Selection Grade and Special Grade in the post of Lab Assistant on 19.07.1993 and 21.07.2023 on the date of his promotion to the post of Lab Assistant. The petitioner was subsequently promoted to the post of Junior Assistant on 01.03.2004. Since pay scale assigned to the post of the Junior Assistant was lesser than the Special Grade Pay which was granted to the petitioner the petitioner opted for scale of pay in the post of Lab Assistant. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant on 08.10.2007 and the same pay scale was continued with increment. The petitioner retired from service on 29.05.2013. The Principal of the College in which the petitioner was working sent the proposal dated 16.07.2014. Subsequently, the proposal was sent to the first respondent to compute the pension and pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner. In turn, the first respondent sent a letter seeking clarification to review the pension proposal.

4. In turn, the Principal of the College in which the petitioner was working sent a communication dated 16.07.2014 stating that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant (higher post) and he has opted to draw pay in the lower post scale of pay (i.e.) Lab Assistant post scale of pay as the lower post scale of pay is higher than the promoted post scale of pay. Hence, the sanction of the grade pay of Rs.4400/-to the petitioner is correct. However, the clarification issued by the College was not considered and instead the grade pay of petitioner was fixed as Rs.2800/-.

5. Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner opted for the scale of pay in the lower post as per G.O.Ms.No.590, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 01.08.1992 and the option exercised by the petitioner having been accepted by the State, the first respondent has committed an error in fixing the grade pay of the pet