Dismissed¶94

A.Ramasamy v. the Principal Accountant

Madras HC20 Mar 2025WP(MD)/22947/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Grade Pay; Selection Grade; B.T. Assistant; Secondary Grade Teacher; stagnation benefit; promotion; pay fixation; G.O.Ms.No.210 dated 11.03.1997; G.O.Ms.No.238 dated 26.06.1998; wrongly conferred Selection Grade w.e.f. 01.06.1998; retirement before eligibility; delay and laches; stale claim; W.A. (MD) No. 312 / 2011; Jothi Chandra; Tamil Nadu school education; Certiorarified Mandamus; Article 226; Madurai Bench; S. Srimathy J.; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Selection Grade Pay is granted if the employee is working in the same post without promotion for 10 years. ¶31

A.Ramasamy Vs the Principal Accountant — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶94

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, promoted as B.T. Assistant on 20.01.1998 and granted Selection Grade therein with effect from 01.06.1998, is entitled to Special Grade Pay in the post of B.T. Assistant after 10 years. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

Selection Grade Pay is granted if the employee is working in the same post without promotion for 10 years.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

Special Grade Pay is granted if the employee is working in the same post without promotion for 20 years.

¶31

Key takeaways

The petitioner was entitled to Selection Grade pay in the post of B.T. Assistant only on completion of 10 years i.e. 20.01.2008; the conferment of Selection Grade in B.T. Assistant on 01.06.1998 by the respondents was wrong.ratio¶32
As per the rules the petitioner would have been entitled to Special Grade Pay in the post of B.T. Assistant only on 20.01.2018, but having retired on 30.06.2008 he is not entitled to Special Grade Pay.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), S. Srimathy J. — Writ petition by a retired B.T. Assistant (Social Science) seeking Special Grade Pay dismissed. Held: Selection Grade accrues on 10 years and Special Grade on 20 years in the same post without promotion; selection/special grade is a stagnation benefit, and a person not serving in the promotional post cannot claim benefits attached to it. The petitioner, promoted as B.T. Assistant on 20.01.1998, was entitled to Selection Grade only on 20.01.2008 — the Selection Grade conferred with effect from 01.06.1998 by the second respondent's proceeding dated 27.11.2000 was wrongly fixed — and would have become eligible for Special Grade only on 20.01.2018, but he retired on 30.06.2008. The claim was further rejected as belated, following the Division Bench ruling in W.A. (MD) No. 312 / 2011 (dated 09.12.2015) that stale and belated claims cannot be entertained, and following the line of decisions in Jothi Chandra (W.P.(MD) No. 3186 of 2016, order dated 25.01.2022), T. Vallimmai, V.Robert, S.Kirubai, V.Ponnuthai, B.Kanagamani and T.Chinna Nadar. Writ petition dismissed; no costs.

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.22947 of 2016

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 20.03.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.22947 of 2016

A.Ramasamy

... Petitioner

vs.

1.The Principal Accountant General (A&E), Office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E), 361, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 018.

¶11

2.The Chief Educational Officer, Office of the Chief Educational Officer, Sivagangai District.

¶12

3.The Head Master, Government Boys High School, A.Kalappur, Sivagangai District. ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent dated 06.11.2015 in No.P10/5/11016720/ADK/252 and to quash the same as illegal and consequently, to direct the respondents to grant special grade in the post of B.T.Assistant with all consequential benefits in the light of proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.3584/A2/2015, dated 15.06.2015, issued by the 2^nd respondent within the time period stipulated by this Court.

¶14

For Petitioner :Mr.S.Rajasekar For R1 :Mr.P.Gunasekaran

¶15

1/16

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Josephine Princess, Vs the Accountant General

Selvarani Vs K.G.Kandakumar (Died)

S.Packia Raj, Vs the Accountant General

R.Petchiammal Vs Tamilselvi

R.Kalyani Vs J.Radhakrishnan IAS

P.Murugesan Vs the Presiding Officer