M.Syed Nizam Ali v. The Accountant General (A & E) Office of the Principal Accountant General

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 24-08-2007Coram :The Hon’ble Mr. Justice F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLAandThe Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.TAMILVANANWrit Petition No.6619 of 1995M.Syed Nizam Ali … Petitionervs.1. The Accountant General (A & E) Office of the Principal Accountant General (A & E) 261, Anna Salai, Madras – 18.2. The Registrar General High Court, Madras.3. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Finance Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.4. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home (Courts) Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9. .. Respondents (2nd respondent impleaded as per order dated 11.6.07 in WP.NO.6619/95 and R-3 & 4 impleaded asper order dated 13.6.2007 in WP.No.6619/95)Writ Petition, seeking certiorarified mandamus is filed by the petitioner,under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking direction to callfor the records, of the first respondent herein relating to letterNo.PV.1/Pen.2/IVP/329-103/93-94/1188, dated 23.07.1993 and also theendorsement dated 07.06.1994 in the covering letter, dated 29.03.1994, andquash the same, consequently direct the first respondent to include thepersonal pay, as per G.O.664, dated 24.08.1992 and G.O.873, dated27.12.1993 and Government Letter No.83256 A/PC 93-1, dated 18.01.1994 andletter No.27418/PC 94-1, dated 07.04.1994 and to pay the petitioner'spension, other terminal benefits and also the arrears including the amountdeducted / withheld, together with 18% interest per annum. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner : Mr.K.Chandrasekar for M/s.Row & Reddy.For Respondents : Mr.Ravikumar A.C.G.S.C for R1 Mr.M.Dhandapani, Spl.G.P for R2 to R4O R D E R*(Order of the Court was made by S.TAMILVANAN, J.)This writ petition has been filed, challenging the order, dated23.07.1993 in letter No.PV.1/Pen.2/IVP/329-103/93-94/1188 and theendorsement dated 07.06.1994, which was marked as Exs. A and Brespectively and quash the same. The petitioner has also consequentlyprayed to direct the first respondent to include the personal pay, as perG.O.Ms.No.664, dated 24.08.1992 and G.O.Ms.No873, dated 27.12.1993 andGovernment Letter No.83256 A/PC 93-1, dated 18.01.1994 and letterNo.27418/PC 94-1, dated 07.04.1994 and to pay the petitioner's pension,other terminal benefits and also the arrears including the amount deducted/ withheld, together with interest.2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein joined theJudicial Ministerial Service as Junior Assistant in the year 1958,promoted to the post of Head Clerk on 10.06.1985 and retired as CentralNazir, on 31.08.1993, after attaining the age of superannuation. Accordingto the petitioner, while he was working as Head Clerk, his pay scale wasRs.905-1545, as per IV Pay Commission, which was subsequently, revised toRs.1600-2600, as per V Pay Commission and that his pay had been fixed inthe pay scale of Rs.905-1545, by office order, dated 10.06.1985, on whichdate, he was promoted as Selection Grade Head Clerk. When the petitionerwas about to retire on 31.08.1993, the impugned order, dated 23.07.1993 bythe first respondent was issued directing to recover the money, on theground that the same was overpaid and fixed his pension, without takinginto account the personal pay. As per letter, dated 27.08.1993 of theSubordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai, the pay drawing officer of thepetitioner, it was informed the first respondent herein that thepetitioner was already drawing the salary in the pay scale of Rs.905-1545(pre-revised) at the time of implementation of G.O.Ms.No.664, dated24.08.1992 and the corresponding scale, as per V Pay Commission wasRs.1600-2600. The petitioner herein was drawing the said pay in therevised Selection Grade Scale and according to him, he was entitled topersonal pay. The first respondent, by his letter, dated 07.10.1993rejected the claim of the petitioner, on the ground that the existing payscale would refer only the ordinary scale and as such, he was not eligiblefor personal pay. Subsequently, on 28.09.1993, the petitioner made arepresentation to the first respondent, referring G.O.Ms.No.664, dated24.08.1992 and claimed that he was entitled to personal pay and that hispension should be fixed, taking into account of his personal pay and alsopleaded that the recovered amount to be returned to him, but contrary to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that, the first respondent passed an order, stating that the petitionerwas not eligible for personal pay. Aggrieved by which, the petitionerherein has preferred this writ petition.3. According to the respondents, as per G.O.Ms.No.664, dated24.08.1992 and G.O.Ms.No.873, dated 27.12.1993, personal pay was grantedto the employees on the scales of pay of the employees, who were appointedor promoted to the scale of pay prior to 27.06.1989 and in theclarification letter, dated 07.04.1994 in Lr.No.27418/TC/94-1, theGovernment has clarified that if an employee working as on 01.08.1992, ina post to which 5% personal pay benefit is not available, then he would beeligible for 5% personal pay. According to the first respondent, the datefor extending the benefit of personal pay in the clarification letter wasin order and the third respondent, by letter dated 27.07.1995 confirmedthe stand taken by the first respondent in dissolving the personal pay.4. It is not in dispute that the Government have issued orders inG.O.Ms.No.664, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 24.08.1992,considering the job responsibility and the importance of the workentrusted to the categories in the new scale of pay Rs.775-1030, Rs.950-1100, Rs.975-1660, Rs.1200-2040 and Rs.1600-2660 and decided to grantpersonal pay at 5% on the basic pay to all the categories of staff in theabove scales of pay computed as on 01.08.1992. The said personal pay wouldbe absorbed in the fitment procedure evolved whenever the next PayCommission is constituted. 5. As per the order issued by the third respondent in G.O.Ms.No.873,Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 27.12.1993, it has been substitutedin the existing paragraph number 4 of G.O.Ms.No.664, Finance (Pay Cell)Department, dated 24.08.1992 as follows :“ 4. At the same time the plea of these employees forGovernment to extend some sympathetic considerationhas been taken note of. Government considering thatthese categories should be positively motivated inundertaking important items of work entrusted to them.Further job responsibilities of these categoriesrequire due recognition taking into account the levelof pay scales of these categories staff in the pre-revised pay scales, the Government have decided togrant 5 percent of basic pay as personal pay to allthose employees who actually moved from the followingpre-revised scales of pay to the revised scales of payi.e, to all those who were appointed / promoted priorto 27.06.1989 (i.e) the date of issue of ordersintroducing the fifth pay commission scales of pay :i) All employees in the pre-revised scale of pay at Rs.475-775 moving over the revised scale of pay of Rs.775-1030.ii) All employees in the pre-revised scale of pay of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Rs.610-1075 moving over to the revised scale of pay of Rs.950-1500 or Rs.975-1660.iii) All employees in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.705-1230 moving over to the revised scale of pay of Rs.1200-2040 andiv) All employees in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.905-1545 moving over to the revised scale of pay of Rs.1600-2660.”It is clear that the crucial date for considering the appointment orpromotion for the purpose of fixing the pay scale, as per G.O.Ms.No.873,Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 27.12.1993 is prior to 27.06.1989.6. The petitioner herein was promoted as Head Clerk in the pay scaleof Rs.780-1385 and was granted Selection Grade pay in the scale of Rs.905-1545 with effect from 10.06.1985. As per G.O.Ms.No.664, Finance (Pay Cell)Department, dated 24.08.1992, those who were given pay scale of Rs.905-1545 prior to the revision would be in the pay scale of Rs.1600-2660.Accordingly, the petitioner’s pay was also fixed by giving 5% personalpay. It has been clearly stated in the letter of the Subordinate Judge,Tiruvannamalai, dated 17.08.1993, the pay drawing officer that thepetitioner was drawing pay scale of Rs.905-1545, while he was working asCentral Nazir in the Subordinate Court, Tiruvannamalai, and admittedly, heretired on 31.09.1993 on attaining superannuation, which is not in disputein the writ petition.7. The Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai, the pay drawingofficer of the petitioner, by his letter Dis.No.576/2006, dated 11.06.2007on verifying the service register of the petitioner has clearly statedthat the petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Clerk, Sub Court,Vellore on 31.05.1985 in the time scale of pay of Rs.450-20-590-25-740-30-800 and his pay was fixed in the pay scale of Rs.905-45-1445-50-1545 witheffect from 10.06.1985 by the Principal District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai,by order No.732/92, dated 10.08.1992 as per the Accountant General’sLetter. In support of the said contention, three volumes of the serviceregister, pertaining to the service of the petitioner has also been sentto the first respondent and subsequently to this Court for perusal. Thelearned District Judge, Tiruvannamalai District by his letter inDis.No.2748107, dated 12.06.2006 on verifying the entries made in theservice register of the petitioner concur the statement of the PrincipalSubordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai. As discussed earlier, it is not indispute that the petitioner herein retired as Central Nazir, Sub Court,Tiruvannamalai, on attaining superannuation in the afternoon on 31.09.1993.8. As per G.O.Ms.No.873, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated27.12.1993, the petitioner was drawing the pay scale of Rs.905-45-1445-50-1545 with effect from 10.06.1985. As he was promoted and drawing theaforesaid pay scale, prior to 27.06.1989, we are of the considered viewthat the aforesaid Government Order is applicable to the petitioner forfixing the pay scale. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9. As per Clause IV of G.O.Ms.No.873, Finance (Pay Cell) Department,dated 27.12.1993, all employees in the pre-revised scale of pay of RS.905-1545 are entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs.1600-2660. Therefore, weare of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to get the payscale, as per G.O.Ms.No.664, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated24.08.1992, as amended by substitution in G.O.Ms.No.873, Finance (PayCell) Department, dated 27.12.1993. But, we are of the view that thepetitioner is not entitled to get 18% interest for the arrears payable tohim by the respondents 3 and 4, as claimed by him in the writ petition.10. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case andthe bank rate of interest, we find it reasonable to direct the respondents3 and 4 to pay the entire arrears, payable to the petitioner with 6%interest and the same shall be paid within three months from the date ofreceipt of the copy of this order.11. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of.However, there is no order as to costs. sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrartsvnTo1. The Accountant General (A & E) Office of the Principal Accountant General (A & E) 261, Anna Salai, Madras – 18.2. The Registrar General High Court, Madras.3. The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu Finance Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.4. The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu Home (Courts) Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. The District Judge, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.6. The Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai.7. The Section Officer, Legal cell, High court, Madras.+ 1 cc to Mr.Row & Reddy Advocate SR.NO.53102+ 1 cc to Mr.T.Ravikumar A.C.G.S.C SR.NO.53175DM(CO)RD 6.9.07W.P.No.6619 of 1995