Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 3263 (MAD)

B. Lalitha v. Accounts Officer, Chennai

2013-09-11

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner was an Assistant Treasury Officer and retired from service on 30.9.2008. 2. The Government, as per G.O.Ms.No.497, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 15.9.1998, granted personal pay at the rate of 5% of basic pay as on 1.9.1998 which shall not be altered once fixed as on 1.9.1998 in the event of promotion/reversion and movement to Selection Grade/Special Grade. The only restriction that the Government has imposed is that the personal pay shall not apply to any promotion beyond the scale of pay of Rs.5,500-9000. Further, the Government also clearly pointed out that the personal pay so granted shall be considered as pay for all purposes such as pension, Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance and City Compensatory Allowance (CCA). 3. The Government in Letter No.69656/PC.I/98-1, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 22.9.1998 issued clarification that in the case of employees who are drawing personal pay where the pay plus personal pay exceeds the pay of the next higher stage in the existing scale, the revised pay may be stepped up to the next higher stage in the revised scale. Accordingly the petitioner's pay was stepped upto Rs.6,200/- with effect from 1.1.1996 in the scale of Rs.5000-150-8000 by the Treasury Officer, the second respondent herein as per the above clarification issued by the Government. 4. But, subsequently, the Government in Letter No.8191/PC/99-1 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 25.3.1999 issued a clarification that personal pay in the existing scale should not be taken into account to arrive at the stage in the revised scale of pay and consequently where the pay plus personal pay exceeds the pay of next higher stage in the existing scale, their pay is fixed at the lower stage in the revised pay scale. 5. This clarification prima facie reduced the pay of those employees whose pay is fixed at the next higher stage taking into account the fact that their pay plus personal pay exceeds the pay of the next higher stage in their existing scale as already clarified by the Government in Letter No.69656/PC/i/98-1, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 22.9.1998, thereby forcing them to draw a reduced pay by one stage in the revised scale on par with their juniors. 6. Against the clarification issued in Government Letter No.8191/PC/99-1 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 25.3.1999, the petitioner along with other 33 others submitted representation to the Government on 19.8.1999. 6. Against the clarification issued in Government Letter No.8191/PC/99-1 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 25.3.1999, the petitioner along with other 33 others submitted representation to the Government on 19.8.1999. Since no order was passed, the petitioner and others approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal passed orders directing the Government to pass orders within four months. 7. But, no order was passed by the Government. On the other hand, the second respondent herein passed an order in R.C.12677/99-A1 dated 3.9.1999 directing to reduce the pay from 1.9.1999 and also ordered recovery of excess pay granted from 1.1.1996 to August 1999. 8. Challenging the clarification order issued by the Government in Letter No.8191/PC/99-1 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 25.3.1999 and the reduction of pay scale and recovery order passed by the second respondent herein in R.C.12677/99-A1 dated 3.9.1999, the petitioner and 33 others filed O.A.No.6344 of 1999 before the Tribunal and an interim order of stay was also granted on 21.10.1999. 9. It is submitted that the petitioner retired from service on 30.9.2008 on reaching the age of superannuation. The last pay drawn by the petitioner was Rs.9,500/-. But while granting pension, the first respondent Accounts Officer reduced the pay of the petitioner from Rs.6,200/- to Rs.6,050/- with effect from 1.1.1996 and the last pay drawn was also reduced from Rs.9,500/- to 9,300/-and calculated the pensionary benefits based on the lesser pay of Rs.9,300/- and authorized pension, commutation of pension, DCRG and family pension. 10. No notice or enquiry or opportunity was given to petitioner before ordering pensionary benefits based on the reduced rate of pay of Rs.9,300/-. Though the petitioner submitted representation, the same was also not taken into consideration. 11. The petitioner and similarly situated persons challenged the clarification order of the Government dated 25.3.1999, in O.A.No.6344 of 1999. Though stay was granted for recovery and reduction by the Tribunal, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 12.3.2009 that the stay order would not bind them, as they are not a party therein. However, it is stated in the impugned order that ultimately if the Original Application No.6344 of 1999 is allowed, the first respondent would revise the pension of the petitioner upward. 12. However, it is stated in the impugned order that ultimately if the Original Application No.6344 of 1999 is allowed, the first respondent would revise the pension of the petitioner upward. 12. In the circumstances, since the Original Application No.6344 of 1999 (renumbered as Writ Petition No.38588 of 2006) was allowed on 22.7.2010, the present Writ Petition is allowed and a direction is issued to the second respondent to send revised pension proposals based on the last drawn pay without reduction, to the first respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the same, the first respondent is directed to revise the pension upward, as stated by them in the impugned order, within a period of two weeks thereafter. 13. The Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.