Madras High Court
K.V.Chandran vs Director Of School Education on 18 October, 2022
W.P.No.7187 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.10.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.7187 of 2017
K.V.Chandran ...Petitioner
Vs.
Director of School Education,
College Road,
Chennai – 600 006. ..Respondent
Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the
impugned order in O.Mu.No.72355/A1/E5/2016, dated 27.2.2017 passed by the
respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to
sanction an increment taking into one year of service rendered by the petitioner
from 1.10.1998 to 30.9.1999 and revise the pension to the petitioner
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Muthupandian
For Respondent : Mrs.S.Mythreye Chandru
Special Government Pleader
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7187 of 2017
ORDER
The order impugned dated 27.02.2017, rejecting the claim of the writ
petitioner for grant of annual increment with reference to the date of retirement
of the writ petitioner is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2.The writ petitioner joined as BT Assistant on 07.07.1964 in the
Government High School and he was promoted up to the cadre of Chief
Educational Officer. The petitioner retired from service on 30.091999.
3.When the petitioner retired from service on 30.09.1999, he filed the
present writ petition in the year 2017, after a lapse of about 18 years from the
date or retirement. The writ petition was instituted at the age of 76 years by the
petitioner and now he would be around 81 years.
4.The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the Government issued
G.O.Ms.No.311, granting the benefit of an annual increment, if the date of
retirement falls one day prior to the eligibility for sanctioning increment. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7187 of 2017
petitioner completed one year of service on the date of retirement on 30.09.1999
and therefore, he is eligible for annual increment w.e.f. 01.10.1999. However,
the said benefit was not granted.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment passed by
this Court in W.P.No.1245 of 2017, dated 14.09.2017, wherein, the benefit of
G.O.Ms.No.311 (Finance Department) dated. 31.12.2014, was extended to the
said petitioner.
6.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the
respondent made a submission that the petitioner retired from service on
30.09.1999 and therefore, the belated claim set out by the petitioner at this
length of time is not entertainable. In this regard, a counter filed by the
respondent states as follows:
05. The Government in G.O.Ms.No.123 Finance (PC)
Department, dated 10.04.2012 constituted a Pay Grievances
Redressal Cell for the anomalies arises in the Tamilnadu Revised
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7187 of 2017
Scales of Pay Rules 2009 for due rectification. The Pay
Grievances Redressal Cell has recommended that "When date of
Increment of a Government servant fall due on the following
Superannuation on completion of one full year of service. Such
service may be considered for the benefit of a notional Increment
purely for the purpose of Pensionary Benefits and such
concession may be made applicable prospectively. Based on the
recommendation of the Pay Grievances Redressal Cell
Government in G.O.Ms.No.311 Finance (CMPC) Department,
dated 31.12.2014 passed orders to the Government servants
whose Increment fall on the day following Superannuation on
completion of one full year of service allowed one notional
Increment purely for the purpose of Pensionary Benefits. The
Government also made applicable the benefit prospective effect
from the date of issue of this order. The Writ Petitioner had
retired from service on 30.09.1999 and has not been eligible to
get the concession sanctioned by the Government retrospectively.
7.No doubt, the benefit of the Government Order was extended to the
pensioners also pursuant to the orders of this Court. However, such benefits
cannot be extended in perpetuity in respect of the retired employees, who retired
long back. The Government Order was issued on 31.12.2014 and the eligible
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7187 of 2017
persons were sanctioned with the increment notionally and the monetary benefit
was extended from the date of Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.311
(Finance Department) dated. 31.12.2014. However, the said benefit cannot be
extended in respect of the Government employees who retired long back so as
to create additional financial burden to the State exchequer. Any such monetary
benefit is to be granted from the date of Government Order and in the present
case, the petitioner retired from his services in the year 1999 and he filed the
writ petition in the year 2017, after a lapse of about 18 years and the
Government Order was passed in the year 2014 and in view of efflux of time,
this Court is not inclined to consider the relief as such sought for in the present
writ petition.
8.Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No Costs.
18.10.2022
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
Speaking order : Yes
ssr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7187 of 2017
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
ssr
To
The Director of School Education,
College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
W.P.No.7187 of 2017
18.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
