Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 3262 (MAD)

V. Loganathan v. Additional Director of Survey & Land Records, Chennai

2013-09-11

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

body2013
Judgment : 1. This writ petition is the transferred O.A.No.3485 of 2002 filed on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking for the relief for a direction to the respondents to fix the scale of pay of the petitioner admissible to the post of Firka Surveyor from 30.4.2001 and disburse the arrears. 2. The case of the petitioner is that even though he was entitled to the pay in the scale of pay of Rs.4500-125-7000, as per the revised scale of pay, he was being paid at Rs.1380/- in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.1200-30-1560-40-2040 from 30.4.2001 and therefore, he suffered monetary loss. It is stated by him that he made a representation on 10.9.2001 to the second respondent to disburse the pay and allowance in the scale of pay of Rs.4500-125-7000 from 30.4.2001. But no orders have been passed on his representation and therefore, he approached the Tribunal seeking for the relief, as stated supra. 3. The respondents filed a counter affidavit. It is stated therein that the petitioner's pay was not re-fixed in the revised scale of pay because of the mistake committed by the petitioner as he was abstained from duty from 1.7.1995. The revised pay scale came into effect from 1.1.1996, the date on which he was absent. The petitioner was allowed to rejoin the duty as per G.O.Ms.No.153 P & AR Department dated 8.8.2000 and G.O.Ms.No.154 P & AR Department dated 8.8.2001 and fresh disciplinary action pursued for his absence from duty from 1.7.1995. After finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings, final orders have been issued by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Vellore, through his proceedings dated 29.7.2002, whereby the petitioner was reverted from the post of Firka Surveyor to the post of Field Surveyor for a period of five years and the period of unauthorised absence from duty between 1.7.1995 to 30.4.2001 has been treated as non-duty period. 4. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have not re-fixed the scale of pay admissible to the post of Firka Surveyor from 30.4.2001, as claimed by the petitioner. The Original Application was filed before the Tribunal on 19.4.2002. 4. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have not re-fixed the scale of pay admissible to the post of Firka Surveyor from 30.4.2001, as claimed by the petitioner. The Original Application was filed before the Tribunal on 19.4.2002. However, from the perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it could be seen that a final order came to be passed against the petitioner through the proceedings dated 29.7.2002 issued by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Vellore, whereby the petitioner was reverted from the post of Firka Surveyor to the post of Field Surveyor for a period of five years and the period of his unauthorised absence was also treated as non-duty period. As the said final order came to be passed subsequent to the filing of the original application, I find that the present relief sought for in the original application cannot be maintained by the petitioner any more without challenging the final order passed on 29.7.2002, as stated supra. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved against the said order, he should have challenged the same before the appropriate forum, immediately. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the relief sought for in the present writ petition is not maintainable and consequently the same cannot be granted. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.