Allowed

R.Rajasekar M.Sc.,M.Ed., v. the Principal Secretary to

Madras HC10 Dec 2024WP/32336/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order reducing the petitioner's pay and recovering excess amount paid. The High Court held that personal pay must be included for bunching calculations under the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1998, entitling the petitioner to a higher revised pay scale of Rs.8,550/- and granted a refund.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; pay fixed at Rs.8,550/- from 01.01.1996; refund of Rs.21,978/- plus differential pay to be paid within three months.

R.Rajasekar M.Sc.,M.Ed., Vs the Principal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.32336 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 10.12.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.32336 of 2012

R.Rajasekar

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶11

The Joint Director (Higher Secondary Education), Office of Director of School Education, DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai – 600 006. ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to

¶13

the proceedings of the second respondent in Mu.Mu.65174/W5/E1/2007 dated 01.10.2012 quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to restore the pay scale of the petitioner to Rs.8550/- from 01.01.1996 on the scale of pay of Rs.8000-275-13500/- and to refund the recovered amount of Rs.21,978/- and to pay the difference in such refixed pay within such time as

¶14

Page 1 of 9

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No.32336 of 2012

¶17

fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Srinivas

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.K.H.Ravikumar, Government Advocate

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner herein was appointed as 'PG Assistant' and joined

¶22

service on 21.08.1981, and his services were also regularized with effect from 21.08.1982. While the petitioner was drawing the Basic Pay of Rs.2600/- (i.e., Rs.2575/- basic pay + Rs.25/- personal pay) in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.2200–75–2800–100–4000, as on 01.01.1996, the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1998 for Short) came into force through G.O (Ms) No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 13.04.1998, with effect from 01.01.1996.

¶23

The dispute in the present writ petition is with regard to the fixation of the pay of the petitioner in the revised scales of pay under the Rules, 1998. The pay of the petitioner was initially revised and fixed as Rs.8,550/- and thereafter in the year 2001, an audit objection was raised,

¶24

Page 2 of 9

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.No.32336 of 2012

¶27

and as a result, the pay of the petitioner was reduced to Rs.8,275/- and the

¶28

excess amount paid to the petitioner was also recovered. The claim of the petitioner in the present writ petition is for fixation of pay in the revised scale of pay of Rs.8,550/- by placing reliance on Sub-Clause (b) of Clause (iii) of Proviso to Sub-Rule (i) of Rule 4 of the Rules, 1998. Hence, the only issue that needs to be addressed in the present writ petition is, whether the said Sub-Clause (b) of Clause (iii) of Proviso to Sub-Rule (i) of Rule 4 of the Rules, 1998, is applicable to the petitioner or not.

¶29

The relevant portion of the said Rule 4(i) reads as under:-

¶30

“(iii) in the fixation of pay if the pay of employees drawing pay at more than three consecutive stages in an existing scale gets bunched (i.e.,) gets fixed in the revised scale at the same stage, the pay in the revised scale of such employees, who are drawing pay beyond the first three consecutive stages in the existing scale may be stepped up from the stage where such bunching occurs, by grant of increment(s) in the revised scale as given below:-

¶31

(a) for employees drawing pay from the 4^th stage up to the 6^th stage in the existing scale – By one increment;

¶32

(b) for employees drawing pay from the 7^th stage up to the 9^th

¶33

Page 3 of 9

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.No.32336 of 2012

¶36

stage in the existing scale, if there is bunching beyond 6^th stage – By two increments; and

¶37

(c) for employees drawing pay from 10^th stage up to 12^th stage in the existing scale if there is bunching beyond the 9^th stage – By three increments.”

¶38

According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is

¶39

entitled to bunch of personal pay of Rs.25/- to his basic pay of Rs.2,575/and then to treat the basic pay of the petitioner as the one drawing pay over and above the sixth stage of 'Table-17' and thereby entitling the petitioner to the benefit of Sub-Clause (b) of Clause (iii) of Proviso to Sub-Rule (i) of Rule 4 of the Rules, 1998. The said clause provides for grant of two increments for the employees drawing pay from the seventh stage and up to ninth stage in the existing stage, if there is bunching beyond the sixth stage. If the personal pay of Rs.25/- is added to the basic pay of the petitioner in the pre-revised scales of pay, the petitioner is falling little beyond the sixth stage and below the seventh stage.

¶40

As already noted above, the petitioner was drawing the basic pay

¶41

of Rs.2,575/- basic pay + Rs.25/- personal pay. The corresponding revised

¶42

Page 4 of 9

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.No.32336 of 2012

¶45

scale of pay corresponding to the basic pay of Rs.2,575/-, after bunching, is Rs.8,275/-, as seen from the Sl.No.6 of 'Table-17' annexed to G.O (Ms) No.162, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 13.04.1998.

¶46

There is no dispute that, for the purpose of bunching, the personal pay is liable to be taken into account. If that is done, the petitioner is definitely falling beyond the sixth stage. In terms of clause (b), for the employees drawing the pay from seventh stage up to ninth stage in the existing scale, and where there is bunching beyond the sixth stage, they are entitled for the award of two increments.

¶47

In the instant case, admittedly the petitioner is drawing Rs.2,575/in the existing pay scales with personal pay of Rs.25/- and a gross total of Rs.7,774/-. If the personal pay of Rs.25/- is added and bunched up, the gross total comes to Rs.7,799/-. The said gross total of Rs.7,799/- is over and above the gross total of seventh stage of Rs.7,997/-. Therefore, the petitioner would definitely fall under Sub-Clause (b) of Clause (iii) of Proviso to Sub-Rule (i) of Rule 4 of the Rules, 1998, thereby entitling for award of two increments and consequently fixing his basic pay at Page 5 of 9

¶48

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

¶49

W.P.No.32336 of 2012

¶50

Rs.8,550/- instead of Rs.8275/-. That is what was actually done in the year 2009, which was subsequently modified basing upon an audit objection. The petitioner has consistently pursued the matter, however, unfortunately the respondents had failed to apply the relevant rule to the case of the petitioner on hand and passed the impugned order dated 01.10.2012, rejecting the claim of the petitioner in an arbitrary manner.

¶51

In the circumstances, this court is of the considered view that the impugned order cannot be sustained and accordingly, the impugned order bearing K:/K/vz;/65174-w5-,1-2007 dated 01.10.2012, is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to restore the pay scale of the petitioner to Rs.8,500/- from 01.01.1996 in the scale of pay of Rs.8000– 275–13500 and to refund an amount of Rs.21,978/- recovered from the petitioner together with differential pay, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶52

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Connected

¶53

Page 6 of 9

¶54

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

¶55

W.P.No.32336 of 2012

¶56

miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶57

10.12.2024

¶58

skr Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes / No

¶59

¶60

The Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶61

The Joint Director (Higher Secondary Education), Office of Director of School Education, DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶62

Page 7 of 9

¶63

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

¶64

W.P.No.32336 of 2012

¶65

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.

¶66

skr

¶67

W.P.No.32336 of 2012

¶68

Page 8 of 9

¶69

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

W.P.No.32336 of 2012

10.12.2024

Page 9 of 9

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

R.Rajasekar M.Sc.,M.Ed., v. the Principal Secretary to

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Rajasekar M.Sc.,M.Ed., v. the Principal Secretary to

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Mehrullah, Vs the Managing Director

C.Suresh Kumar Vs The Principal Secretary to

K. Sivaprakasam Vs Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies

P.Anbazhagan Vs The Chairman

Thiru.R.Arokia Raj Vs the Director General

K.Boopathy, Vs The Commissioner