IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on : 25.04.2022

Pronounced on : 06.06.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

W.P.No.16028 of 2010

K.Anjayan

... Petitioner

Versus

1. The District Collector of Thanjavur and

Director of Saraswathi Mahal Library,

Thanjavur, Thanjavur District

2. The Administrative Officer

Saraswathi Mahal Library,

Thanjavur, Thanjavur District

... Respondents

PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, praying for Writ of Mandamus, to direct

the respondents to restore the 5% personal pay with effect from

01.08.1992 and fix the petitioner's pay accordingly and grant

him all consequential benefits.

For Petitioner

: Mr.P.Rajendran

For Respondents

: Mr.M.Alagu Gowtham

ORDER

The petitioner, who was working as Binder under the second

respondent at the Saraswathi Mahal Library was initially

appointed on 11.06. 1989. The pre-revised scale of pay for the

said post of Binder in the fifth pay commission was Rs.505 -845.

However, since the pre-revised scales of pay starting from

Rs.475 -775 upto Rs.705 - 1230 were not given an appropriate

hike at the time of revision of scales in the sixth pay

commission, the Government took note of the anomaly and issued

G.O.MS.No.664, dated 01.08.1992 whereby it ordered to compensate

the loss. It was decided to grant 5% personal pay to those

affected employees. However in the said government order, four

scales of pay were specifically mentioned and the scale of pay

below the scale fixed for the petitioner and similarly, the

scale of pay above the petitioner’s scale of pay were mentioned.

However, the in-between scale of pay drawn by the petitioner is

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

not specifically mentioned. It is useful to extract the relevant

portion of the G.O.(M.S).No.664, which reads as follows:-

“4.At the same time the plea of these

employees for Government to extend some

sympathetic consideration has been taken note

of, Government consider that these categories

should be positively motivated in undertaking

important items of work entrusted to them.

Further

job

responsibilities

of

these

categories require due recognition. Keeping in

mind the importance of the job responsibilities

attached to the categories in these scales of

pay and the need to positively motivate these

categories to undertake their responsibilities,

Government have decided to grant a personal pay

at five per cent of the basic accordingly

direct that five per cent of the basic pay

computed as on 1.8.92 be granted as personal

pay to the following:-

(i) All categories of staff in the pre-

revised scales of pay at Rs.475-775 moving over

to the revised scale of pay of Rs.775-1030.

(ii) All categories of staff in the pre-

revised scale of pay of Rs.610-1075 moving over

to the revised scale of pay of Rs.950-1500 or

Rs.975-1660.

(iii) All categories of staff in the pre-

revised scale of pay of Rs.705-1230 moving over

to the revised scale of pay of Rs.1600-2660. ”

2. The said Government Order was issued to redress the

grievances of the employees in the scales of pay of Rs.475 -775

up to Rs.705 - 1230. Since the petitioner was in between he was

also granted personal pay with effect from 1.08.1992 as per the

said government order. Subsequently an order was passed on

13.04.1999, which is simply in the form of Memorandum ordering

recovery of the 5% of pay, which was granted to the petitioner.

The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court, challenging

the said order by W.P.No.3149 of 2000. This Court allowed the

said Writ Petition by quashing the recovery order in the

following terms:-

“ In view of the same, this writ petition

is allowed and the impugned order of recovery

is set aside. At this juncture, the learned

counsel for the petitioner submitted that now

t