Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, J. Sambandam, was appointed as Junior Bailiff in 1965 and retired as Special Grade Process Server on 31.01.2003. He had been receiving pension for about 26 years. After a lapse of more than two decades from his retirement, he submitted a representation claiming eligibility for revision of his pay to the scale of 1400-2600. The representation was forwarded by the District Munsif, Tiruvarur, to the Accountant General of Tamil Nadu vide proceedings dated 12.05.2023. The Accountant General returned the proposal on 13.06.2023, stating that as per G.O.666 and G.O.304, no such scale of pay existed in the relevant annexures for any ordinary grade time scale, and further, that any proposal for pay revision of a retired employee must be sent through the proper channel, i.e., the Registrar General of the High Court. Challenging this rejection, the petitioner filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a certiorarified mandamus. The court examined the contentions and found no infirmity in the impugned order. It observed that the claim was made after a long delay and that the Government Orders did not support the claimed scale. However, the court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority afresh, with the direction that the correctness of any grievance must be verified by the Registrar General before forwarding to the Accountant General. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Pension and Retiral Benefits - Pay Scale Revision for Retired Employee - Government Orders (G.O.666 and G.O.304) - The petitioner, a retired Special Grade Process Server, sought revision of pay to scale 1400-2600 after 20 years of retirement; the Accountant General rejected the proposal on the ground that the Government Orders do not permit such revision and that the proposal must be routed through the Registrar General; the Court held that there was no infirmity in the rejection and disposed the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority through proper channel (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's request for revision of pay from the scale of 800-1150 to 1400-2600 after more than 20 years of retirement, on the ground that Government Orders do not permit such revision, was valid and whether the petitioner has any remedy
Final Decision
Writ petition disposed of. The court found no infirmity in the rejection order. However, liberty granted to petitioner to approach competent authority with his grievance, to be verified by the Registrar General before forwarding to the Accountant General.
Law Points
- Pay revision claim by retired employee must be forwarded through proper channel
- rejection based on non-availability of scale in Government Orders is valid
- liberty to re-agitate with competent authority
