Madras High Court
Namasivyam vs The District Collector on 28 March, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.18054 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28.03.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.P.(MD)No.18054 of 2019
Namasivyam ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
2.The Assistant Director,
Rural Devlopment,
Ramanathapuam.
3.The Block Development Officer,
Mandapam Panchayat Union,
Mandapam,
Ramanathapuram District.
4.The Panchayat President,
Pattanam Kathan Panchayat,
Mandapam,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents herein to
pay the monetary benefits as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.191, dated
29.04.1998 regarding 40% increase in salary for the period from
01.01.1996 till the date of retirement on 28.02.2002 to the petitioner with
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 05:49:35 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.18054 of 2019
interest and to modify the pension from the date of retirement and pay
the due arrears.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Pandiyaraj
For R1, R2 & R4 : Mr.K.R.Badurus Zaman,
Government Advocate
For R3 : Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the
respondents to pay monetary benefits as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.191,
dated 29.04.1998 regarding 40% increase in salary for the period from
01.01.1996 till the date of retirement on 28.02.2002, based on the
petitioner's representation.
2.The case of the petitioner is that he joined as Village Assistant in
fourth respondent Panchayat from 01.01.1991. After putting 11 years
service in the fourth respondent Panchayat, he was retired from service
on 28.02.2002 on superannuation. When he joined as Village Assistant,
he derived monthly salary of Rs.400/- and drawn Rs.2,003/- as monthly
salary at that time of his retirement. The government has passed an order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 05:49:35 pm )
in G.O.Ms.No.191, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 29.04.1998
regarding 40% increase in salary from 01.01.1996. The said G.O. and its
annexure clearly shows that the said Government Order is applicable to
all the employees including employees of the Panchayat. But the
respondents did not pay 40% increase in remuneration. He approached
the respondents in person and sent representation, but they did not
consider. Subsequently, he sent reminder letter on 03.07.2019 to the
respondents. But the respondents have not given any benefits to him.
Hence, this writ petition.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the annexure mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.191 clearly states that the
said order is applicable to the employees including the employees of the
Panchayat. To strengthen his contention, he has relied upon the
judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.
10802 of 2012 dated 24.08.2017 to show that G.O.Ms.No.191 is
applicable to all the employees including employees of Panchayat and
when the Government itself expressed its decision to accept the
recommendation of the official committee on paying remuneration, the
said revision is also applicable to the Panchayat employees and the
benefits extended under the said Government Order cannot be denied.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 05:49:35 pm )
4.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents 1, 2 & 4 would submit that The Principal Secretary to Rural
Development and Panchayatraj Department issued a clarification vide
Government Letter dated 04.03.1999, thereby, it has been specifically
clarified that the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.191 is not applicable to the
Panchayat Secretary / Village Assistant of Rural Development and
Panchayatraj Department. He would submit that various authorities had
wrongly extended the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.191 in favour of number of
ineligible Village Assistants and later on, after following the clarification
orders passed by the Principal Secretary to Rural Development and
Panchayatraj Department issued administrative instructions to all the
District Collectors to initiate necessary recovery proceedings as against
the Village Assistant who were wrongly granted benefit under the said
government order. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to seek any
relief based on the said government order.
5.This Court has considered the submissions made on either side
and perused the available records.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 05:49:35 pm )
6.It is seen from the records that the writ petitioner was working as
Village Assistant in Pattanam Kathan Panchayat, Mandapam,
Ramanathapuram District and retired from service on 28.02.2002 on
superannuation, to that effect, the District Collector, Ramanthapuram has
issued an order dated 20.02.2002. It is the specific case of the petitioner
that he is entitled to get 40% increase in salary for the period from
01.01.1996 till the date of retirement on 28.02.2002. The learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this
Court in W.P.(MD)No.10802 of 2012 dated 24.08.2017 and this Court
has observed as follows:-
5.In view of the above Division Bench Order and
further fact that the very Government Order itself is
applicable for all the employees including the Panchayat,
the Writ Petitioners are certainly entitled to such benefit.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed and the
respondents are directed to pay the monetary benefits as
stipulated in G.O.Ms.No. 191, Finance (Pay Cell)
Department, dated 29.04.1998 regarding 40% increase in
salary, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the respondents
shall calculate the amount payable to the writ petitioners
and disburse the amount to the writ petitioners within three
months. No costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 05:49:35 pm )
7.In the light of the above decision, this Court, without going into
the merits of the case, directs the first respondent to consider the
representation submitted by the petitioner dated 03.07.2019 with regard
to 40% increase in salary for the period from 01.01.1996 till the date of
retirement on 28.02.2002, as per G.O.Ms.No.191, dated 29.04.1998, on
merits, if otherwise the petitioner is eligible, within a period of twelve
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear
that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case.
8.With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No
costs.
NCC : Yes / No 28.03.2025
Index : Yes / No
gns
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 05:49:35 pm )
To
1.The District Collector,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
2.The Assistant Director,
Rural Devlopment,
Ramanathapuam.
3.The Block Development Officer,
Mandapam Panchayat Union,
Mandapam,
Ramanathapuram District.
4.The Panchayat President,
Pattanam Kathan Panchayat,
Mandapam,
Ramanathapuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 05:49:35 pm )
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
gns
28.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 05:49:35 pm )
