V.Krishnamurthy v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, rep. by its Secretary, 800, Anna Salai, Chennai & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 20.03.2009C O R A MTHE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLAW.P.No.18314 of 2003 V.Krishnamurthy .. Petitioner-Vs-1. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, rep. by its Secretary, 800, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.2. The Chief Internal Audit Officer, Board Office, Audit Branch, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, First Floor, 800, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2... RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus callingfor the records of the order of the 2nd respondent in LetterNo.1724/BOAB/F.8/F.81/D.33, dated 17.04.2002 and letterNo.1493/BOAB/F.8/F.81/D.33, dated 25.03.2003, quash the same andconsequently direct the respondents to revise the pension/familypension of the petitioner's wife Late S.V.Vijayal.For Petitioner : Mr.V.Krishnamurthy, Party-in-person.For Respondents : No appearance O R D E RThe petitioner seeks to challenge the communication of the secondrespondent dated 17.04.2002 and 25.03.2003 and while praying for thequashing of the above communications, also seeks a direction to therespondents to revise the pension/family pension of the petitioner.2. The petitioner retired as Selection Grade Accounts Assistantfrom the service of the first respondent on 31.08.1996 and he is in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ receipt of pension. The petitioner's wife one Tmt.S.V.Vijayal wasalso employed in the first respondent Board as a Selection GradeAccounts Supervisor. She left her service under Voluntary RetirementScheme on 01.05.1991 and died on 28.05.1997. After the death of thepetitioner's wife, the petitioner was in receipt of family pensionapart from the pension paid to him for the service rendered by him.3. The scale of pay of the employees of the Board came to berevised w.e.f. 01.12.1996. The first respondent Board issued B.P.(Ch).No.208, dated 18.08.1998, revising the pension and pensionarybenefits applicable to the existing pensioners who could not get theadvantage of the pay revision w.e.f. 1.12.1996. The pension of thepetitioner was revised as Rs.3,860/- and the family pension was alsorevised as Rs.3,716/-. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the revised payapplicable to Selection Grade Accounts Supervisor w.e.f 01.12.1996,came to be fixed as Rs.8100-275-13875, that is the petitioner's wifewas holding the post of Selection Grade Accounts Supervisor at thetime of her voluntary retirement and the revised family pensionw.e.f. 01.04.1999 ought to have been fixed based on the said scale ofpay, in which event, the petitioner would have got the family pensionat the rate of Rs.4,050/- i.e. 50% of Rs.8,100/- from 01.04.1999 to28.05.2004. 5. The petitioner made a claim on the above basis and sought forpayment of arrears in his representation dated 18.01.2000 to thesecond respondent. The second respondent in his reply dated09.05.2000, rejected the claim of the petitioner by stating that thepetitioner's wife was not eligible for selection grade scale of payordered in B.P.(FB).No.106 dated 03.11.1994, since the petitioner'swife went on VRS on 30.04.1991 itself. The subsequent representationof the petitioner dated 07.07.2000 and 13.07.2000 was also rejectedby the impugned communications dated 17.04.2002 and 25.03.2003. Thewrit petition has now been filed challenging the above proceedings.6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents,it is contended that the scale of pay of Selection Grade AccountsSupervisor came to be revised as under in para 6:-"6..... (i) Revised Scale of Pay with effect from01.12.1988 Rs.2120-80-2600-90-3230-100-3530(ii) Revised Scale of Pay with effect from01.12.1992 Rs.2150-85-2575-95-3050-105-3680(iii) Revised Scale of Pay with effect from01.12.1996 Rs.7225-225-12175......"According to the respondents, in B.P.(FB).No.106, dated 03.11.1994,the revision of scale of pay applicable from 01.12.1992 came to beannounced, though such revision was based on a settlement with the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Employees Union and that the said Board Proceeding was not applicableto the petitioner's wife in as much as she voluntarily retired on30.04.1991, while the revised scale of pay which came into effect on01.12.1992, was not extended to those employees who retired prior tothe said date. It is therefore contended that the scale of pay thatwas applicable to the petitioner's wife on the date of her voluntaryretirement was the one which was given effect to on 01.12.1988 i.e.Rs.2120-80-2600-90-3230-100-3530 and that the corresponding revisedscale of pay which came into being w.e.f. on 01.12.1996 was Rs.7225-225-12175. 7. It is also the contention of the respondents that the revisionin the scale of pay applicable to Selection Grade Accounts Supervisorwhich came into being on 01.12.1992 viz., Rs.2150-85-2575-95-3050-105-3680 came to be revised on 01.12.1996 and the correspondingrevised scale was Rs.8100-275-13875. It is pointed out that sincethe petitioner's wife was not in employment on 01.12.1992, therevised scale of pay of Rs.2,150/- was not applicable to her andconsequently the subsequent revised scale of Rs.8100-275-13875, couldnot be applied to her for the purpose of either pension or familypension. It is further contended that the claim of the petitionerwas rightly rejected by the proceedings impugned in the writ petition.8. When this writ petition was heard on 02.03.2009, thepetitioner appeared in person and filed his written submissions.There was no representation on behalf of the respondents. The writpetition is therefore being disposed of on merits.9. I have considered the respective contentions of the parties inthe affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the writtensubmissions and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of therespondents as well as the various material documents placed beforethe Court. I also perused B.P.(FB) No.106 dated 03.11.1994, B.P.(Ch)No.208 dated 18.08.1998 and B.P.(Ch) No.250 dated 05.10.1999.10. In B.P.(FB) No.106, dated 03.11.1994, the existing scale ofpay of seven categories starting from Vehicle Helper toSuperintendent/Administrative and Technical Branches includingAccounts Supervisor and other existing selection grade scales arerevised. The selection grade scale have been set out in paragraph 3of the said proceedings, where it is specifically mentioned that inthe case of employees who had already moved to selection grade postsprior to 01.12.1992, the revised selection grade scale of payindicated in the said proceedings should be made applicable as perthe pay fixation regulations of the Board.11. In B.P.(Ch) No.208 dated 18.08.1998, clause 3(i) of the saidBoard Proceedings specifically mention that the basic pay as on01.01.1996, 02.01.1996, 03.01.1996.....01.12.1996 of the existingpensioners who have not had the advantage of revision of pay with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ effect from 01.12.1996 and who retired from posts on standard payscales and family pensioners will be allowed increase in pension at40% of basic pension.12. In B.P.(Ch)No.250, dated 05.10.1999, the first respondentafter making a reference to B.P.(Ch).No.208, dated 18.08.1998, aswell as after considering the demands of the Unions/Associations ofthe pensioners of Electricity Board passed orders to the effect thatin the case of family pension granted prior to 01.12.1996, revisedfamily pension should be calculated at the rate of 30% of the minimumof the revised time scale of pay introduced with effect from01.12.1996 for the post last held by the concerned pensioner /deceased Board employee. It is further ordered that for selectiongrade employee, the minimum of the time scale of pay should be theminimum of the scale of pay applicable to the selection grade /special grade scale of the respective post last held by the Boardemployee. It is further held that the revised pension / familypension should be given effect to from 01.04.1999.13. From a reading of the above three Board Proceedings, ittranspires that the Board came forward to extend the benefit ofrevised scales of pay on and after 01.12.1996, to such of thosepensioners / family pensioners who did not have the benefit of suchrevision from that date viz., 01.12.1996. A perusal of thepetitioner's affidavit discloses that the claim for applicability ofthe revised scale of pay of Rs.8100-275-13875 was based on B.P.(FB).No.106, dated 03.11.1994. As far as the applicability of the saidBoard Proceedings is concerned, paragraph 3 of the said B.P.specifically states that the revision of scales of pay of selectiongrade employees was applicable to those who moved to selection gradepost prior to 01.12.1992, and also remained in the said post on01.12.1992 for whom alone the revised scale of Rs.2475-95-3045-105-4200 was made applicable. In order to apply B.P.(FB)No.106, dated03.11.1994, the employee in the selection grade should have alreadymoved to such selection grade post prior to 01.12.1992 and shouldhave been receiving the revised selection grade scale on 01.12.1992for whom alone the benefit of revised scale was extended. As far asB.P.(Ch).No.208, dated 18.08.1998 and B.P.(Ch).No.250, dated05.10.1999 is concerned, the same does not talk of the applicabilityof the relevant revised scale of pay. 14. In fact in the case of the petitioner, B.P.(FB) No.106, dated03.11.1994 is more relevant than B.P.(Ch).No.208 dated 18.08.1998 andB.P.(Ch).No.250 dated 05.10.1999. If based on the application ofB.P.(FB) No.106, dated 03.11.1994, the petitioner's wife was entitledfor the pre-revised scale of Rs.2475-95-3045-105-4200, by virtue ofapplicability of B.P.(Ch.)Nos.208 and 250, the corresponding revisedscale of pay w.e.f 01.12.1996 would automatically come into play. Aspointed out earlier, the first conditions that is required to besatisfied as set out in paragraph 3 of B.P.(FB) No.106, dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

03.11.1994 was that the petitioner's wife should have moved to theSelection Grade Accounts Supervisor post prior to 01.12.1992. In sofar as the said condition is concerned, there is no difficulty inaccepting the stand of the petitioner, since, as on 30.04.1991, i.e.the date of the voluntary retirement of the petitioner's wife she hadalready moved into the post of Selection Grade Accounts Supervisor. 15. The next condition to be satisfied is that she should haveremained in the selection grade scale as on 01.12.1992, as far as thepetitioner's wife was concerned, she had voluntarily retired on30.04.1991 and therefore there was no question of the petitioner'swife continue to remain in the selection grade scale on 01.12.1992.Therefore, there was no occasion for the respondent Board to revisethe scale of pay of the petitioner's wife in the selection grade fromthe pre-existing scale of Rs.2150-2375-3050-3680 to 2475-3045-4200.Significantly, after 01.12.1988, the Selection Grade AccountsSupervisor scale which was Rs.2120-2600-3230-3530 came to be revisedas Rs.7225-225-12175 w.e.f 01.12.1996, while the revised scale of payof Rs.2475-3045-4200 came to be revised as Rs.8100-275-13875. Sincethe petitioner's wife had never moved to the subsequent revisionwhich came into effect from 01.12.1992 viz., Rs.2150-2575-3050-3680and at the time of her voluntary retirement, she was drawing her payin the scale of Rs.2120-2600-3230-3530, the applicable revised scaleof pay as from 01.12.1996 happened to be Rs.7225-225-12175 andtherefore the family pension payable to the petitioner on 01.04.1999came to be rightly fixed at Rs.3,716/-. 16. Having regard to the said position, I do not find any flaw inthe rate of family pension granted to the petitioner. The contentionof the petitioner that the revised scale of pay of Rs.8100-275-13875based on B.P.(FB)No.106, dated 03.11.1994 would apply to his wifecannot be accepted as she did not remain in the service as on01.12.1992 as stipulated in the said proceedings. 17. I therefore do not find any scope to interfere with theproceedings impugned in this writ petition. The writ petitiontherefore fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarkk https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 800, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.2. The Chief Internal Audit Officer, Board Office, Audit Branch, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, First Floor, 800, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.1 CC To Mr.R.Parthiban, Advocate, SR NO.91181 CC To Mr.M.Vaidyanathan, Advocate, SR NO.8925W.P.No.18314 of 2003 kk(co)pmk/31.3.2009.