Judgment :- 1. The petitioner herein who is a retired Subedar Major of the Indian Army, was reemployed on his retirement as the Overseer in the High Court, Madras. He retired from the Army at the age of 47 after putting in a service of 27 years on a pension of Rs. 494 per month, The Registrar of the High Court issued an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Overseer in the Court on 16-4-1980 in the scale of pay of Rs. 450-800. The advertisement inter alia notified that ex-servicemen would be preferred. Petitioner accordingly applied for the said post and was selected. He was appointed as Overseer—Vide appointment letter in Roc. No. 2535 A/80 A4 dated 1-9-1980 of the first respondent (the Registrar of the Court). The petitioner assumed the office on 5-9-80 and continued functioning on and from the said date. By a letter in R.O.C. No. 6969 (b)/80 A4 dated 25-4 86 the petitioners pay was fixed under the orders of the Chief Justice at Rs 508.50 from 5-9-80 to 30-1-83; at Rs 583.50 per month with effect f rom 31-1-83 to 6-10-83 and at Rs. 800 per month (maximum of time scale) with effect from 7.10 83, on the principle inter alia as stated in the order: “The fixation of pay of Thiru S. Thangaraj on re-employment works out as mentioned here under: Rs. P. (1) Last Pay drawn + 27&percent of pay last drawn (to be treated as Dearness Pay) 750. 00 in Military Service 202. 50 Dearness Allowance to be treated as pay as per Govt of India & apos;s (M of D) letter 952. 50 No 13/36027/AG/Ps4(a)/I733/C/D (Pension Services) dt. 21-6-79. LESS: Rs. Military pension now drawn 494/- To be ignored as per G.O. Ms. No. 877 Fin. dt. 9-10-68 & G.O.Ms. No. 972, Fin. dt. 2-9-65 50/- .. 444/- .. 444. 00 .. To be fixed (at) Rs. 508.50 w.e.f. 5-9-80 (2) Last Pay drawn 750.00 in Military Service +27&percent of pay last drawn As per the Governt. of India's letter above cited. 202.50 (To be treated as Dearness pay). 952. 50 Less: Military Pension now drawn 494/- To be ignored as per G.O. Ms. No. 68. Finance (Pension) Dept., dt. 31-1-83. 125/-369/-, — 369. 00 To be fixed at Rs. 583.50 W.e.f. 31-1-83 Rs. Rs. (3) Last Pay drawn 750. of India's letter above cited. 202.50 (To be treated as Dearness pay). 952. 50 Less: Military Pension now drawn 494/- To be ignored as per G.O. Ms. No. 68. Finance (Pension) Dept., dt. 31-1-83. 125/-369/-, — 369. 00 To be fixed at Rs. 583.50 W.e.f. 31-1-83 Rs. Rs. (3) Last Pay drawn 750. 00 in Military Service Plus 27&percent of pay last drawn 202. 50 As per the Government. of (To be treated as Dearness India & apos;s letter Pay). above cited. (To be treated as Dearness pay). 952. 50 The entire pension to be ignored as per G.O. Ms. No. 847, Finance (Pension) Dspt., dt. 7-10-83. As Rs. 952. 50 exceeds the maximum of the time scale of Rs. 450-20-590-25-740-30-800, his pay is restricted to Rs. 800/- being the maximum of the time scale. Pursuant to that necessary formalities were completed and petitioner started drawing pay and allowances of the office of the Overseer of the Court and continued drawing such pay and allowances until it is said on some audit objection, the Accounts officer, the second respondent refused to admit his pay bill for the month of August 1989. The audit party, it appears, looked into the question of fixation of pay of the petitioner some time after October 1988 and found as follows:— “As per the Civil Service regulations, re-employment pensioner should be allowed only the latest prescribed scale of pay. The initial pay on re-employment should be fixed at the minimum stage of the scale of pay prescribed for the post In which he is re-employed. In case where it is felt that fixation of initial pay of the re-employed persons at the minimum of the prescribed pay scale will cause undue hardship, the pay may be fixed at a higher stage after allowing one increment for each year of service which the pensioner had rendered before retirement in a post now lower than that in which he is re-employed (the comparison of the post should normally be made on the basis of scale of pay). However as the scale of pay under the State Government are generally lower than those under the Central Government and a comparison in such a case may be made only with reference to the duties and responsibilities attached to the post. However as the scale of pay under the State Government are generally lower than those under the Central Government and a comparison in such a case may be made only with reference to the duties and responsibilities attached to the post. For the purpose of fixation or refixation of pay in the manner indicated above, the pension and the pension equivalent (PE) of D.C.R.G. as shown below should be ignored, provided he opted for refixation of pay on each such occasion. Rs. 50 on 5-9-80 (Vide G O. Ms. No 877, dated 9-10-69 and G.O. Ms No 972, Finance, dt. 2-9-65). Rs. 125 on 31-1-83 (Vide G.O. Ms. No-68, Finance (Pension) dt. 7-10-83. Rs. 494 Plus PE of D.C.R.G. (Vide G.O. Ms. No. 847, Finance (Pension) dated 7-10-83. In addition to the pay to be fixed as above he may be permitted to draw separately any pension sanctioned to him and retain any other form of retirement benefits for which he is eligible, provided that the total amount of intial pay as fixed as above plus the gross amount of pension (i.e., before commutation) and P.E. of D C.R.G less the ignorable limit of Rs. 50 or Rs. 125 or the entire pension as the case may be should not exceed the pre-retirement pay (i.e., Rs. 750 or Rs. 3,000 whichever is less). In all cases where either of those limits is exceeded the pension and other retirement benefits may be paid in full and necessary adjustment made in the pay so as to ensure that the total of pay and pensionary benefits is within the prescribed limits. Where after the pay is fixed at the minimum or any higher stage, it is reduced below this minimum as a result of said adjustment increase in pay may be allowed after each year of service at the rate of increments admissible as if the pay had been fixed at the minimum of the higher stage at the case may be.” According to the 4th, respondent, since the above provision was not applied in fixing the pay of the petitioner on re-employment and as such the case of his fixation of pay had to be taken up with the Government and got fixed suitably as required under F.R. 27 and overpayment of pay and allowances regularised. 2. 2. In view of this objection, it is stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent that the question of refixation of the pay of the petitioner was taken up and the Area Commander, Head Quarters, ATNKK and G area, Mount Road, Madras, was addressed on 25-8-89 to furnish the scale of pay of Subedar Major from time to time i.e., from 1980 till date to work out the fixation of pay of the petitioner. The General Officer, Commanding, Head Quarter A.T.N.K..K. and G. Area in his letter dated 29.8.89 requested the Registry of this Court to intimate the Record Office concerned of J CO. and the unit last served for further necessary action in the matter. On obtaining the said particulars called for by the General Officer Commanding, from the petitioner, the said officer was again addressed on 4-4-90 furnishing the said particulars. Thereafter, it seems, some steps were taken in as much as the petitioner was asked to fill in a form which was forwarded to the General Officer, Commanding, Head Quarters, ATNKK. & G area who in turn forwarded the said form to the Record Office, General Engineer Group, Roorkee—vide his letter dated 29-5-90 requesting the said office to furnish the particulars called for directly to the High Court, Madras The Record Office, General Engineer Group. Roorkee, was addressed by the Registry on 19-6-9O apprising the position and requesting them to furnish the particulars immediately. No particulars, it is said, however have been furnished until now. In the meanwhile as noticed above the Accounts Officer refused to admit the pay bill of the petitioner for t he month of August 1989 stating that as per R. 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Provident Fund Rules, the re-employed Government Servant can also join the fund at his opt on the authority under which the individual was re-employed as Overseer in High Court Service should be stated and a copy of initial pay fixation statement of the petitioner as Overseer should be enclosed. The petitioner suffered on account of nonpayment of his salary and therefore, he made certain representations. The respondents then decided to fix the pay of the petitioner for the time being in the minimum time scale of pay from August 1989. The petitioner suffered on account of nonpayment of his salary and therefore, he made certain representations. The respondents then decided to fix the pay of the petitioner for the time being in the minimum time scale of pay from August 1989. When a pay bill claiming the arrears consequent on the fixation of his pay in the minimum of the time scale of pay was sent to the Accounts Officer, he returned it saying: “It has been ascertained that the excess payment made to the individual is above Rs 23,000. Hence the Pay Commission arrears could not be admitted before regulating his re-employment pay and effecting the recovery, since the individual is going to retire shortly.” Noticing that certain objections were raised by the audit party, this Court thought it necessary that a notice should issue to the Accountant General, and accordingly a notice was issued to the Accountant General. A return has been filed on his behalf on solemn affirmation by the Deputy Accountant General (Administration). In the said counter affidavit it is said: “The writ petitioner is an ex-serviceman in receipt of military pension now re-employed in he High Court of Madras. As such, his pay on reemployment has to be regulated under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 and orders thereunder issued by Government of Tamil Nadu from time to time. The basic principle for fixation of pay is that the pay granted to an official plus his pension and pension equivalent of gratuity should not exceed the last pay drawn by him at the time of his retirement. I t is further submitted that in respect of Central Civil Pensioners who are re-employed in civil post under the State Govern-raen after super-annuation, the regulation of pay will be in accordance with the provisions of R. 44 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. 1978 But in respect of military pensioners Pension (Military Pension) upto Rs. 5O has to be ignored in fixing the pay on re-employment provided they had retired before attaining the age of 55. (Vide G O. Ms. No. 972, Finance (Pension) Department dated 2-9-1965. On 21-1-1983 Government of Tamil Nadu further issued orders revising this limit of pension to be ignored; On 7-10-1983 as well as on 29-1-1987 Government of Tamil Nadu further revised the amount of pension to be ignored while fixing the pay on re-employment of such pensioners. (Vide G O. Ms. No. 972, Finance (Pension) Department dated 2-9-1965. On 21-1-1983 Government of Tamil Nadu further issued orders revising this limit of pension to be ignored; On 7-10-1983 as well as on 29-1-1987 Government of Tamil Nadu further revised the amount of pension to be ignored while fixing the pay on re-employment of such pensioners. These orders took effect from the date of issue but in respect of persons who are already re-employed their pay also can be re-fixed under these orders provided they opted to come under these orders. But, if they so o pted, their terms would be determined afresh as if they had been re-employed far the first time from the date of the Government Orders” Coming, however, to the aadit objection it is said: “During the local audit conducted in January 89 an audit party of this Respondents office which inspected the accounts of the High Court Registry noticed that the re-employment pay being allowed to the writ petitioner was not correct in as much as the re-employment pay plus his military pension and pension equivalent of gratuity exceed last pay drawn by him at the time of his retirement from army This aspect was pointed out to the High Court Registry vide letter AG(A)I/ISC VII/III/22-50 88 89/646 dt 23-2-1989 and it was requested that “the case of Sri Thangarajs fixation of paymay be taken up with Oovernment and suit ably got fixed under F.R. 27 and overpayment of pay and allowances made regularised. It is submitted that a reply thereto intimating the action taken thereon is still awaited from the High Court Registry.” 3. Although this petition was presented before this Court on 6-7-1990 and came up for hearing on 19-7-1990 when notice of motion was ordered, the matter was delayed on account of the delay in the filing of the counter affidavit and the hearing of the petition by the Court. The petitioner has since been superannuated on 31-12-1990. He has thus retired without any payment of salary for quite a few months and without any fixation of retirement benefits and determination with respect to his rights while in service and after retirement. 4. Was there a mistake in admitting the petitioner to a scale of pay as per the administrative order of the Chief Justice of this Court-vide R O.C. No. 6969(b)/80, A4 dt. 2S-4 86? 4. Was there a mistake in admitting the petitioner to a scale of pay as per the administrative order of the Chief Justice of this Court-vide R O.C. No. 6969(b)/80, A4 dt. 2S-4 86? If there was any mistake in that order, could/can that be reviewed administratively on the basis of the audit objections so as to cause prejudice to the rights of the petitioner created under the said orders of the Chief Justice? Assuming that such a review could/can be done administratively in case any order revising the scale of pay issued, will that not visit the petitioner with civil/penal consequences? Will the petitioner then in such a situation be not entitled to a hearing and suggest that he had disclose all that had happened to him including the pension which he was drawing from the Army and that if any one went wrong in fixing the pay of the petitioner in the scale of pay to which he was appointed, the mistake v as committed by the Court and not by him and therefore the court and other respondents cannot punish him by denying to him the benefits already conferred by the said order for the reason of their own wrong, on the principle no one can claim premium upon his own recalcitrant, are a few questions that arise apart from the sufferings that have been caused to the petitioner by the respondents, first in their not taking care to follow such Government instructions which applied to the case of the petitioner and later when some audit objections were raised by not promptly proceeding to collect all the available materials and ensure that the wrong was undone and the petitioner was not visited with a civil consequence. I have seen the advertisement inviting the applications for the post of Overseer in the Court. It indicated the number of posts and the scale of pay being Rs. 450-20-590-25-740-30 800, the qualifications, the nature of duties and the mode of application. I have also seen the office memorandum of the appointment of the petitioner and the order afore-mentioned under which the petitioners pay had/has been fixed. The extract of the audit objection in the counter-affidavit has already been extracted above. 450-20-590-25-740-30 800, the qualifications, the nature of duties and the mode of application. I have also seen the office memorandum of the appointment of the petitioner and the order afore-mentioned under which the petitioners pay had/has been fixed. The extract of the audit objection in the counter-affidavit has already been extracted above. It did/does not anywhere suggest that there was any lack of jurisdiction either in the matter of the appointment of the petitioner as the Overseer or fixation of pay except that it has indicated how in respect of a person in the employment of the State Government after retirement from one or the other service pay is fixed. 5. It is necessary here to understand that Art. 229 of the Constitution of India gives full power to the Chief Justice of the Court or such other Judge or Officer of the Court as he may direct to make appointments of Officers and servants of a High Court, subject to the Rules that may be framed by the Governor of a State in which case no person not already attached to the Court shall be appointed to any office connected with the Court save after consultation with the State Public Service Commission. Art. 229(2) states: “Subject to the provisions of any law made by the Legislature of the State, the conditions of service of officers and servants of a High Court shall be such as may be prescribed by Rules made by the Chief Justice of the Court or by some other Judge or officer of the court authorised by the Chief Justice to make rules for the purpose; Provided that the rules made under this clause shall, so for as they relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions require the approval of the Governor of the State.” 6. It is thug evident that the State Government does not have jurisdiction in the matter of the service conditions of the employees of the High Court. The only person competent is the Chief Justice of the Court or such ether Judge or Officers of the Court as directed by the Chief Justice. No rules applicable to the employees of the State Government are applicable to the employees of the High Court, except the Rules made by the Chief Justice of the Court or by some other Judge or officer of the Court authorised by the Chief Justice. No rules applicable to the employees of the State Government are applicable to the employees of the High Court, except the Rules made by the Chief Justice of the Court or by some other Judge or officer of the Court authorised by the Chief Justice. It is not the case of the respondents before this Court that any Rule framed by the Chief Justice of the court had been violated in the matter of fixation of the pay of the petitioner under the orders of the Chief Justice of the Court. It is also not suggested that the various Government Orders which are referred to in the audit objection are statutory in nature or that by any method of law have been extended to the employees of the High Court. The audit party before taking any such objections was required to ascertain whether the Government Orders which were being referred to by it were applicable to the employees of the High Court in the sense that they had been adopted as the Rules framed in accordance with the command of the Constitution under Art. 229(2) of the Constitution of India. It is strange why the office of the High Court, particularly the Registry, did not take notice of the mandate of the Constitution, and it surrendered meekly to the audit objection without pointing out to the auditors that in the matter of appointment and fixation of pay of any employee of the High Court, the verdict of the Chief Justice was final. No person in the State Government or anywhere could ignore the order of the Chief Justice in this behalf. The audit party was thus bound to respect the Chief Justices order and follow accordingly with respect to the salary and service conditions of the petitioner. 7. The respondents have done a serious wrong to the petitioner. They have not only withheld his emoluments, they have allowed him to retire without determining the pensionary benefits and without seeing whether the petitioner would be getting any gratuity or any other benefits payable to a retired employee of this Court. In my view, the entire exercise of re-fixation of pay of the petitioner is wholly uncalled for. They have not only withheld his emoluments, they have allowed him to retire without determining the pensionary benefits and without seeing whether the petitioner would be getting any gratuity or any other benefits payable to a retired employee of this Court. In my view, the entire exercise of re-fixation of pay of the petitioner is wholly uncalled for. It has taken place on account of first the ignorance of the Accountant General and his audit party of the position of an employee of the High Court and secondly, on account of the High Court itself being ignorant of this Constitutional position. Without there being anything suggesting how G.O.Ms. No. 877 dt. 9-10-68, G.O.Ms. No. 68 Finance (Pension dt. 7-10-83 and G.O. Ms. No. 847, Finance (Pension) dated 7-10-83 applied to the employees of the High Court, neither the audit party nor the High Court was entitled to invoke any one of them. It, however, has to be seen that in the order fixing the pay of the petitioner there is a mention of G.O. Ms. No. 877, Fin. dt. 9-10-68, G.O. Ms. No. 972, Fin. dt. 2-9-65, G.O. Ms. 68, Finance (Pension) dt. 31-1-83. The Chief Justice evidently was hot unaware of the Rules which were required to be applied in fixing the pay of the petitioner. 8. Having considered the case as above, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus to the effect that the respondents must forthwith abide by the order of the Chief Justice of this Court in R.OC. No. 6969(b)/80, A3 dated 25-4-86 and pay to the petitioner his entire arrears of pay, allowances, etc., without any unreasonable delay, fix the retirement benefits including pension in accordance with Rules and pay regularly without fail. Since the petitioner has already suffered and the pay earned by the petitioner has been denied to him, the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 121/2 per cent compoundable per annum until fully paid. 9. In the result this application is allowed. Let a mandamus be issued in the aforesaid terms. Respondents are directed to implement the order within a period of two months, failing which they shall br liable to pay to the petitioner compensation of Rs. 20,000 with interest at the rate of 12 1/2 per cent per annum until paid. The application is allowed with costs. Let a mandamus be issued in the aforesaid terms. Respondents are directed to implement the order within a period of two months, failing which they shall br liable to pay to the petitioner compensation of Rs. 20,000 with interest at the rate of 12 1/2 per cent per annum until paid. The application is allowed with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 1500.