Madras High Court
C.Mathesu vs The Secretary To Government on 20 June, 2022
Order dated : 20.06.2022
Writ Petition No.10940 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
Writ Petition No.10940 of 2014
C.Mathesu
S/o.Chinnusamy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Revenue,
Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai - 5.
3.The Principal Accountant General (A&E),
Office of the Accountant General,
Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018.
4.The District Collector,
Collectorate, Salem - 636 001.
5.The Tahsildar,
Mettur Taluk, Salem District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in
proceeding in No.Pr AG(A&E) PEN P26/12615988/5/R2615988 dated
13.11.2013 passed by the third respondent and quash the same and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Order dated : 20.06.2022
Writ Petition No.10940 of 2014
consequently, direct the third respondent to re-fix the petitioner's last drawn
salary as Rs.15,670/- and further, direct the respondents to settle the arrears.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Elango
For Respondents : Mr.S.Prabhakaran
Government Advocate [R1, R2, R4 & R5]
Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan [R3]
*****
ORDER
The order passed by the Accountant General of Tamil Nadu/third
respondent in proceeding dated 13.11.2013 is under challenge in this present
writ petition. Further direction is sought for to refix the petitioner's last drawn
salary as Rs.15,670/-.
2. The petitioner filed the writ petition after a lapse of two years from the
date of his retirement stating that his selection grade date was not granted based
on his last drawn pay. The petitioner was allowed to retire from service, without
prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings, on 30.06.2011. The petitioner states
that one day prior to his retirement, a charge memo was issued to him After
completion of the disciplinary proceedings, the pension was sanctioned in
favour of the writ petitioner. Admittedly, now the petitioner is receiving the
pension.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Order dated : 20.06.2022
Writ Petition No.10940 of 2014
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is eligible for grant of
selection grade based on the last drawn pay and the said selection grade was
denied during the relevant point of time. The benefit of selection grade is to be
granted taking into account the last drawn pay of the petitioner and therefore,
the pension fixed is also incorrect and thus, the petitioner is entitled for the
relief.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
proposal submitted by the Tahsildar/fifth respondent was not properly
considered as the fifth respondent sent the proposal to revise the pension based
on the last drawn pay of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to
move the present writ petition.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the third respondent opposed the said
contention by stating that on scrutiny of the service records of the petitioner, the
third respondent found that the pay of the petitioner was erroneously fixed and
the pensionary benefits were authorised based on the actually admissible pay
last drawn of Rs.12,600/- (Basic pay of Rs.9,800 + Grade pay of Rs.2,800/-).
Pointing out the reason for reduction of Pay Last Drawn and seeking to recover
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Order dated : 20.06.2022
Writ Petition No.10940 of 2014
the overpayment from the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity, the third respondent
issued a letter dated 13.11.2013.
6. The third respondent stated that the petitioner was awarded selection
grade in the post of Village Administrative Officer on 08.07.2004 while he was
drawing a pay of Rs.3,965/- in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.3,200 -
Rs.4,900/- as Village Administrative Officer. On 08.07.2004, his pay has been
fixed in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000 applicable to the
Selection Grade Village Administrative Officer and granting the subsequent
annual increments, his pay as on 31.12.2005 was Rs.4100 + 50 + 173.
Therefore, the fixation done during the relevant point of time was considered
and the selection grade was also awarded in the post of Village Administrative
Officer in favour of the petitioner on 08.07.2004.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referred the case of one
Mr.Thangavel wherein a higher fixation was granted. The said case is also dealt
with by the third respondent and a reply has been given in paragraph No.10 of
the counter which reads as under:
"10. ... the petitioner has referred to the case of one Sri.Thangavel
and contended that in his case, higher pay and pensionary benefits were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Order dated : 20.06.2022
Writ Petition No.10940 of 2014
admitted. In the absence of the Pension Payment Order Number of
Sri.Thangavel, which is the key input to trace the relevant pension
records, this respondent is handicapped to review both the cases in
comparison. Yet if Sri.Thangavelu is a similarly placed person and his
benefits have been admitted at a higher rate, the same would have to be
subject to downward revision. In the reverse, the benefits of the petitioner
cannot be revised upwards."
8. The third respondent relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of State of Bihar and others v. Kameshwar Prasad
Singh and another [(2000) 9 SCC 94], wherein it has been held as follows:
"When any authority is shown to have committed any illegality or
irregularity in favour of any individual or group of individuals, others
cannot claim the same illegality or irregularity on the ground of denial
thereof to them."
9. The third respondent also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Gursharan Singh & Others v. NDMC &
Others [1996 (2) SCC 459], wherein it has been held as follows:
"Neither Article 14 of the Constitution conceives within the
equality clause this concept nor Article 226 empowers the High Court to
enforce such claim of equality before law. If such claims are enforced, it
shall amount to directing to continue and perpetuate an illegal procedure
or an illegal order for extending similar benefits to others. Before a claim
based on equality clause is upheld, it must be established by the
petitioner that his claim being just and legal, has been denied to him,
while it has been extended to others and in this process there has been a
discrimination."
10. In the present case, the selection grade was granted in favour of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Order dated : 20.06.2022
Writ Petition No.10940 of 2014
petitioner on 08.07.2004. Accordingly, his pay was revised in the scale pay of
Rs.4000-100-6000 as applicable to the Selection Grade Village Administrative
Officer. Subsequently, annual increments were also granted in favour of the
petitioner and accordingly, his pay was fixed as Rs.4100+50+173 as on
31.12.2005. Thus, there is no infirmity in respect of fixation approved by the
third respondent/Accountant General of Tamil Nadu. This apart, regarding the
selection grade benefit of the year 2004, the revised proposal submitted by the
Tahsildar in the year 2013 was rejected and the case of Thangavel itself was
found to be erroneous and such errors occurred cannot be a ground to claim
benefit by the petitioner. This being the factum established, this Court does not
find any acceptable ground for considering the relief as such sought for in the
present writ petition.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
20.06.2022
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
gm
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Order dated : 20.06.2022
Writ Petition No.10940 of 2014
1.The Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Revenue,
Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai - 5.
3.The District Collector,
Collectorate, Salem - 636 001.
4.The Tahsildar,
Mettur Taluk, Salem District.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM., J
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Order dated : 20.06.2022
Writ Petition No.10940 of 2014
gm
Writ Petition No.10940 of 2014
20.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
