Allowed

G.Ramachandran v. The Joint Registrar of

Madras HC23 Jun 2023WP/6446/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order rejecting the petitioner's request to revise his basic pay. The Court held that the respondents erroneously fixed the pay at Rs. 2300 instead of Rs. 2500. Respondents were directed to rework the calculation and settle the dues within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; respondents directed to fix basic pay at Rs. 2500/- and settle dues within eight weeks; connected W.M.P. closed.

G.Ramachandran Vs The Joint Registrar of — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.6446 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 23.06.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

¶6

W.P.No.6446 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.7962 of 2018

G.Ramachandran

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Krishnagiri Region, Cooperative Colony, Krishnagiri - 635 001, Krishnagiri District.

¶11

2.The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Krishnagiri Circle, 4th Cross Street, Cooperative Colony, Krishnagiri - 635 001, Krishnagiri District.

¶12

3.The President,

¶13

S.5922, Maharajakadai Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, Maharajakadai Village & Post - 635 120, Krishnagiri Taluk & District. ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India,

¶15

pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to calling for the entire

¶16

records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his

¶17

1/11

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

W.P.No.6446 of 2018

¶20

proceedings Na.Ka.121/2018 Sa.Pa, dated 05.02.2018 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to revise the petitioner's pay scale by taking note of G.O.Ms.No.289, Food and Cooperation Department, dated 28.09.2007 and G.O.Ms.No.75, Food and Cooperation Department, dated 29.04.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.185, Food and Cooperation Department, dated 29.12.2010 and G.O.Ms.No.137 Food and Cooperation Department, dated 09.11.2015 along with circular issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies in Na.Ka.59789/2014 PACB, dated 07.01.2016 and disburse the arrears of the salary to the petitioner.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam For Respondents : Mr.D.Gopal 1, 2 For Respondent 3 : Mr.S.V.Durai Solai Malai **********

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records on the file of the first

¶24

2/11

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

W.P.No.6446 of 2018 respondent and quash the impugned order dated 05.02.2018 and consequently to revise the petitioner's pay scale in the light of G.O.M.No.289 dated 28.09.2007 and subsequent G.O's along with circular issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies dated 07.01.2016 and disburse the arrears of salary to the petitioner.

¶27

It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Packer in the third respondent's Society as early as on 22.09.1987 and joined duty on 13.01.1988. The grievance of the petitioner is that his pay scale was not fixed in the light of G.O.Ms.No.289 dated 28.09.2007. According to the petitioner, in the light of the said G.O, he is entitled to a consolidated pay of Rs.2500/- per month from 13.01.1988. Since the respondents did not comply with his request, the petitioner filed W.P.No.20883 of 2008 to direct the respondent to revise his salary by implementing G.O.Ms.No.289. However, the petitioner withdrew the writ petition since the respondent revised his pay scale from February 2008 and paid arrears upto August 2008.

¶28

3/11

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

W.P.No.6446 of 2018

¶31

2.1 According to the petitioner, subsequently the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 29.04.2008 revising the pay scale and giving benefit in the old scale for all those persons who have completed 15 years of service and in terms of the same, the basic pay of Rs.2000/- per month for salesman and Rs.1800/- for packers after completing eight years along with the pay scale one increment for every three increments, employees after completing service of 16, 17, 18 years was refixed with a basic pay of Rs.2500/- per month (salesman), Rs.2300/- per month (packers). Subsequently, a circular was issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies on 07.01.2016 clarifying that employees are entitled to get 113% D.A along with basic pay and an additional 12% from the total salary.

¶32

2.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that without reference to any of these Government orders or the clarifications issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, the petitioner's pay scale was never revised by the respondents. Therefore, he gave a representation to the respondents on 12.12.2016 to revise the pay scale as per the circular issued by the Registrar

¶33

4/11

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

W.P.No.6446 of 2018

¶36

of Cooperative Societies on 07.01.2016. As there was no response on the part of respondents, the petitioner filed a W.P.No.27260 of 2017 and this Court disposed of the writ petition and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation in the light of G.O.Ms.No.289, G.O.Ms.No.75 and circular issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies on 07.01.2016, on merits and in accordance with law.

¶37

2.3. Thereafter, the first respondent has passed an order on

¶38

05.02.2018 rejecting the petitioner's request to revise the pay scale in the light of the above G.O's. Therefore, the petitioner has challenged the said order in this writ petition on the grounds that the first respondent has failed to consider G.O.Ms.No.289 dated 28.09.2007, in and by which, the respondents have to disburse the consolidated payment of Rs.2500/- for the period of five years from the date of joining duty and the respondents ought to pay the arrears at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month from the date of his joining for a period of five years. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that even G.O.Ms.No.75 was not followed in fixing the time scale of pay and this has resulted in the petitioner getting lesser salary than even his

¶39

5/11

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

W.P.No.6446 of 2018

¶42

juniors. The petitioner relies on G.O.Ms.No.185, dated 29.12.2010, in terms of which, the basic pay of employees of fair price shop was revised to Rs.5080/- per month with effect from 01.01.2010 and even this G.O was not complied with.

¶43

The third respondent has filed a counter along with the typed set of papers, justifying the impugned order. It is stated that the third respondent had disbursed a sum of Rs.6,46,271/- to the petitioner on 31.10.2022. Therefore, no further amounts were due and payable to the petitioner and as such, the writ petition itself has become infructuous. The learned counsel for the third respondent would submit that the petitioner has not understood the scope of the relevant G.O's and the first respondent has passed the impugned order only after considering the relevant G.O's and in fact it has been found that a sum of Rs.1330/- was paid as excess pay from April 2016 to the petitioner and hence, it is the petitioner who has to pay Rs.31008/- to the third respondent and no amounts were due and payable to the petitioner.

¶44

6/11

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

W.P.No.6446 of 2018

¶47

Heard Mr.C.Prakasam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Gopal, learned counsel for the first and second respondents and Mr.S.V.Durai Solai Malai, learned counsel for the third respondent.

¶48

The only grievance of the writ petitioner is that if G.O.Ms.No.289 Food and Cooperation Department dated 28.09.2007 was followed in its true letter and spirit, along with G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 29.04.2008 and the circular of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies dated 07.01.2016, there would be no difficulty for the respondents to fix the consolidated pay of the petitioner at Rs.2500/-. However, the respondents have not done the same. It is admitted by the respondents also that they have calculated the basic pay only at Rs.2300/- and not Rs.2500/-. This Court has perused G.O.Ms.No.289, wherein, in paragraph 3 of the said G.O, it is stated as follows:

¶49

@3/ Tl;Lwt[ epaha tpiyf; filfspy; gzpg[hpa[k; tpw;gidahsh;fs; kw;Wk; vilahsh;fs; Mfpnahh;fSf;F Cjpa cah;t[ tH';FtJ Fwpj;J ghprPypj;j

¶50

7/11

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.6446 of 2018

FG gpd;tUk;

mspj;Js;sJ/

ghpe;Jiufis

~g[jpjhf epakdk; bra;ag;gl;l -

¶57

bra;ag;gLk; tpw;gidahsh;fSf;F jw;bghGJ tH';fg;gLk; bjhFg;g[{jpakhd U:/3000-?j;jpid U:/4000-?khf cah;j;jp tH';fyhk;/ jw;bghGJs;s bjhFg;g[{jpak; bgWk; gzpf;fhyk; 5 Mz;Lfs; vd;gjid Xuhz;lhf jpUj;jp mikf;fyhk;/

¶58

~epaha tpiyf; filg;

¶59

gzpahsh;fSf;F nkw;Fwpg;gpl;l gofSld;

¶60

TLjyhf fPH;f;fhqk; tifapy; epaha

¶61

tpiyf; filg;go tH';fyhk;?

¶62

	tpw;gidahsh;	vilahsh;
m) brd;id kw;Wk; g[wefh; gFjp	U:/1000-?	U:/500-?
M) ,ju khefuhl;rpfs;	U:/500-?	U:/250-?
,) ,ju ,l';fs;	U:/250-?	U:/200-?

¶63

8/11

¶64

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶65

W.P.No.6446 of 2018

¶66

From the above, it is clear that the respondents had taken a conscious decision to increase the basic pay by Rs.200/- for packers. It is admitted by the respondents also that the basic pay of the petitioner was calculated only at the rate of Rs.2300/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner rightly contended that as per G.O.Ms.No.289, dated 28.09.2007, he is entitled for a basic pay @ Rs.2500/- and the respondents failed to accept the same. The petitioner ought to have been given benefits of the extra sum of Rs.200/- which has been contemplated in the G.O.Ms.No.185 dated 29.12.2010. Excepting this issue, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated all other issues including terminal benefits and earned leave have been fully settled. Considering the above and the clear mandate of G.O.Ms.No.289, the petitioner would be entitled for the consolidated pay of Rs.2500/- and not Rs.2300/-.

¶67

Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The respondents shall rework the basic pay fixing the sum as Rs.2500/- with prospective effect from the date of the relevant G.O's and accordingly, after reworking

¶68

9/11

¶69

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶70

W.P.No.6446 of 2018

¶71

the amounts payable to the petitioner, the respondents shall settle the same

¶72

to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.7962 of 2018 is closed.

¶73

23.06.2023

¶74

rna Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶75

¶76

1.The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Krishnagiri Region, Cooperative Colony, Krishnagiri - 635 001, Krishnagiri District.

¶77

2.The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Krishnagiri Circle, 4th Cross Street, Cooperative Colony, Krishnagiri - 635 001, Krishnagiri District.

¶78

3.The President, S.5922, Maharajakadai Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, Maharajakadai Village & Post - 635 120, Krishnagiri Taluk & District.

¶79

10/11

¶80

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.6446 of 2018

P.B.BALAJI,J

rna

W.P.No.6446 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.7962 of 2018

¶85

23.06.2023

¶86

11/11

¶87

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

G.Ramachandran v. The Joint Registrar of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Ramachandran v. The Joint Registrar of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Narayanan, Vs District Collector

M.J.Ramavathy Vs The Chief Educational Officer

Mrs.Janaki @ Nancy Janaki Vs The Director of Elementary

A.Ayyanar, Vs The General Manager

V.Sobana Kumar Vs The Union of India

M.Sadhasivam, working as Vs The Chairman