Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from an intra-court appeal filed by S. Rajendiran, who served as Chairperson of the Child Welfare Committee in Puducherry. He challenged the order of a single judge dated 19-03-2024 in WP No. 17607/2022, which had dismissed his writ petition seeking additional remuneration. The appellant contended that during the COVID-19 period, the Child Welfare Committee was compelled to conduct more than the prescribed 12 meetings per month to address pressing child welfare proceedings. Accordingly, he sought a direction from the court to settle the remuneration for those excess meetings. The respondents were the Chairperson of the Child Welfare Committee, the Welfare Officer, and the Director of the Department of Women and Child Development, all representing the Government of Puducherry. The legal question before the Division Bench was whether the High Court, exercising its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, could interfere with the fixed remuneration that had been agreed upon at the time the appellant assumed the post. The appellant argued that the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic necessitated additional work beyond the standard monthly limit, justifying extra compensation. The respondents presumably relied on the terms of the original agreement and the limitations of judicial review. The court, speaking through Justice S.M. Subramaniam, held that the fixed and agreed remuneration could not be revised by the High Court under Article 226. It further observed that the appellant had accepted the remuneration terms at the time of taking up the position, and therefore the claim for additional payment for meetings beyond 12 per month had no merit. The court noted that if the prescribed number of meetings was indeed insufficient to meet the committee's responsibilities, the appropriate remedy lay in administrative steps to enhance the remuneration commensurately, not in a judicial direction to pay for past excess meetings. Consequently, the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal without costs, affirming the single judge's order.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review under Article 226 - Remuneration of Statutory Functionaries - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The appellant, former Chairperson of Child Welfare Committee, claimed additional remuneration for meetings conducted beyond the prescribed 12 per month during COVID-19, asserting necessity. The Court held that the High Court cannot revise fixed and agreed remuneration under Article 226, as the appellant had accepted the terms upon assuming the post. Held that the claim deserves no merit consideration and the writ appeal must be dismissed. (Paras 3-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can direct payment of additional remuneration for meetings conducted beyond the fixed number by the Child Welfare Committee, when the remuneration was agreed upon at the time of assuming the post
Final Decision
Writ appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Fixed and agreed remuneration cannot be revised by High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- claim for additional remuneration beyond agreed terms has no merit
