Madras High Court
Dr.V.Niranjan vs /
Author: S.Srimathy
Bench: S.Srimathy
W.P.(MD)No.831 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 21.04.2022
DELIVERED ON : 09.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P.(MD)No.831 of 2014
1.Dr.V.Niranjan
2.Dr.M.Arunagiri
3.Dr.C.N.Chidambaranadan ...Petitioners
/Vs./
1.The Union of India,
Rep.by its Secretary,
Department of Higher Education,
Ministry of Human Resource Development,
Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi-110 001.
2.The University Grants Commission,
Rep.by its Secretary,
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi-110 002.
3.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep.by its Principal Secretary
1/35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.831 of 2014
Department of Higher Education,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
4.The Accountant General of Tamil Nadu,
No.300, Anna Salai,
Chennai. ...Respondents
PRAYER:- Writ Petition - filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the
respondents to revise the pension of the petitioners at Rs.26,695/- per
month with effect from 01.01.2006 and disburse the pension arrears to
the petitioners.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Subramanian
For Respondents : Mr.S.Jeyasingh
Senior Panel Counsel,
Government of India for R1
Mr.J.Alaguram Jothi for R2
Mr.P.Thilak kumar,
Government Pleader assisted by
Mr.D.Farjana Ghoushia
Special Government Pleader for R3
Mr.P.Gunasekaran,
Standing Counsel for R4
2/35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.831 of 2014
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed directing the respondents to revise the pension of the petitioners at Rs.26,695/- per month with effect from 01.01.2006 and disburse the pension arrears to the petitioners.
2. The petitioners are retired as Grade-I Principal of Madura College of Arts and Sciences (Autonomous), Madurai. The grievance of the first petitioner is that he retired from service in August 2002 and he had served for 37 years in the said College. The first petitioner joined as Tutor in English in 1965, became a Lecturer in English in 1968, then the Professor of English re-designated as Selection Grade Lecturer, then got elevated as Reader in English, and subsequently, became the Head of the Post-Graduate in the Department of English. At present, the petitioner is drawing a revised pension of Rs.23,700/-. 3/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.831 of 2014
3. The second petitioner began his collegiate career in 1966 in Thiagarajar College of Thiagarjar College of Arts and Sciences as Demonstrator in Chemistry. He became Tutor in Tamil in 1973, then Assistant Professor of Tamil in 1977, then Lecturer Selection Grade in 1986, and then Reader in 1988. In 2003, he became the Principal and Head of the Institution and after his retirement in 2004, he served more than three years under the extension scheme. He is drawing the revised pension of Rs.23,700/-.
4. The third petitioner began his career in M.D.T.Hindu College, Tirunelveli, as Lecturer in Economics in 1967 and he served as the Principal of the Institution in the year 2000 and retired in May 2004. He had served as Chairman, PG Board of Economics, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, 1997-2000, Member, Standing Committee of Academic Affairs Manomaniam Sundaranar University, 1997-2000; Member, Standing Committee on Academic Affairs Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, 1997-2000 and Member, Senate, Madurai Kamaraj University, 1990-1993. His revised pension is Rs.23,700/-. 4/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.831 of 2014
5. The Government of Tamil Nadu following the recommendation of UGC adopted two different pay scales for the principals of the Colleges, the higher pay scale for the Grade-I Principal of the Post-Graduate College and the relatively lower pay scale for the Grade-II Principal of the Under-Graduate College. The higher pay scale of Grade-I Principal is linked to the higher eligibility criterion required for the post. A service of 15 years is required for the post of the Grade-I Principal whereas a service of only 10 years is required for the post of Grade-II Principal. From this, it would be evident that these two grades of Principals are not equal and that the pay and pension of the Grade-I Principal of the Post-Graduate College are different and higher than the pay and pension of Grade-II Principal of the Under-Graduate College. With the implementation of the 5th UGC Pay revision from 01.01.1996 to 31.12.2005, the scale of pay of the Grade-I Principal was 16400-40-20900-500-22400, whereas the pay scale of the Grade-II Principal was 12000-420-18300.
5/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.831 of 2014
6. The Government of India implemented the revised pay scales recommended by the 6th Central Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.2006. At the same time, the Ministry of Human Resource Development and the UGC of the Government of India implemented revised pay scales for the University and College Teachers in line with the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission and the UGC Pay Review Committee headed by Dr.Chadha. For the Grade-I Principals who had retired before 01.01.2006, the revised pension was not fixed with reference to the last pay drawn. But the revised pension of the “post-01.01.2006” Grade-I Principal was based on their last drawn pay. The pension of the “pre-01.01.2006” Grade-I Principal was decided by the Principle of Modified Parity. According to this principle of Modified Parity, all the pre-01.01.2006 Grade-I Principals should be given a revised pension which should not be below 50% of the minimum pension admissible to the post-01/01/2006 Grade-I Principal. This brings all pre-01.01.2006 Grade-I Principals on par with the minimum 6/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.831 of 2014 pension applicable to the post-01.01.2006 Grade-I Principal.
7. The minimum pension that should be given to post-01.01.2006 Grade-I Principal is that with reference to the appropriate Fitment Table No.5, provided by the MHRD, the basic stage in the revised scale indicated in the UGC regulation (2010) 5.2 of 6.8.0 is Rs.43,390/- which is added with Academic Grade pay of Rs.10,000/-. If this calculation is taken into account, the basic pay of Rs.43,390+ 10,000/- would come to Rs.53,390/-. 50% of Rs.53,390/- = Rs.26,695/- is the minimum pension. However, the respondents have fixed the petitioners minimum pension is Rs.23,700/-. When this objection was raised before the respondents, the respondents have stated that the Grade-I Principals and Grade-II Principals were treated equally and there is no difference in between the said categories. The contention of the petitioner is that during the service period, the Grade-I Principals are considered as higher than of the Grade-II Principals. 7/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.831 of 2014
8. Dr. Chadha, the Head of the Pay Review Committee recommended an Academic Grade pay of Rs.11,000/- to the pre-revised pay scale of the Grade-I Principal which is Rs.16,400/-450-20900-500/- =22,400. To the Grade-II Principal, the pre-revised pay scale is Rs. 12,000/-420-18300 and Dr.Chadha recommended an Academic Grade Pay of Rs.8,700/- to the Grade-II Principals. But, in the subsequent modification by MHRD and the UGC, the Academic Grade pay of the Grade-I Principal is reduced from Rs.11,000/- to Rs.10,000/- and the Academic Grade Pay of the Grade-II Principal is raised from Rs.8,700 to Rs.10,000/-. This brings the Grade-I and the Grade-II Principals on the same plane which amounts to downgrading the Grade-I Principal by denying equality of treatment with reference to his pre-revised pay scale. The discriminatory procedure was disputed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi which categorically held that the discrimination was unjust and illegal and consequently, the Office Memoranda of the Director of Pensions and Pensioners' Welfare dated 03.10.2008, 14.10.2008 and 11.02.2009 was 8/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.831 of 2014 quashed, by stating that this is an adverse discrimination and it would affect the pensioners. Based on the order, the Central Government has modified the pay commission and given effect to the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the same principles ought to be applied in the present case also. Hence, the petitioners pray to allow the present writ petition.
9. The third respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit and additional counter. In the counter, it has been stated that the Government has revised the pay scale to the College Teachers including aided college teachers as revised in G.O.Ms.No.350, Higher Education Department dated 09.09.2009. The pay scales for Grade-I Principal had been revised as 37400-67000 with Academic Grade pay of Rs.10,000/- and Special Allowance of Rs.3,000/- and the pay scales for Grade-II Principal had been revised as Rs.37,400-67,000 with Academic Grade Pay of Rs.10,000/- and special allowance of Rs.2,000/-. The Government also revised the pension to all the existing pensioners who are retired from the posts on standard pay scales and family pensioners shall be 9/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.831 of 2014 revised in G.O.Ms.No.235, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 01.06.2009. The said Government Order shall be applicable to the Government pensioners, Teacher pensioners of Aided institutions and Local bodies. In the said Government Order, it has been stated that the consolidated pension/family pension shall be treated as final basic pension with effect from 01.01.2006. The petitioners are receiving pension who are considered as pre-2006 pensioners. The pre-2006 pensioners were fixed with reference to the last pension drawn. The petitioners have already retired from service in 2002 and 2004 and not in service as on 01.01.2006. Hence, they are eligible for “Pension Revision” only and not “Pay Revision” along with the pension revision as on 01.01.2006. The Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.1785, Education Department dated 05.12.1988, in which, it has been stated that the post of Grade-I Principal was sanctioned to a college with Post Graduate Courses where the strength of the students is having more than 1000 and the post of Grade-II Principal was sanctioned to a college where the strength of the students is less than 1000 students. However, 10/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.831 of 2014 in G.O.Ms.No.111, Higher Education (H1) Department, dated 24.03.1999, dated 24.03.1999, the scale of pay of Rs. 16,400-450-20900-500-22400 was fixed for Grade-I Principal and the minimum basic pay will be fixed at Rs.17,300/- with effect from 01.01.1996 and Rs.12,000-420-18300 was fixed for Grade-II Principal starting with the basic pay of Rs.12,840/-. The said G.O.Ms.No.111 prescribes the norms for Grade-I and Grade-II Principals. It is further submitted that the Government has revised the pay scales for College Teachers with effect from 01.01.2006 in G.O.MS.No.350 and this is applicable only for teachers those who are in service as on 01.01.2006. The Government also revised the pension to the Government staff and teachers with effect from 01.01.2006 in G.O.Ms.No.235. In paragraph No.12 of the said Government order, it is stated that “the Pension Pay Officer/Treasury Officer/Sub-Treasury Officer shall work out the revised pension/family pension and disburse the arrear amount to the pensioner/family pensioner as specified in paragraph No.7 above and the copy of the above shall be marked to the Principal Accountant General who will in turn take follow up action and verification in this regard”. 11/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.831 of 2014
10. In the above extract, it has been clearly stated that “the pension pay officer shall work out the “Revised Pension” and not “Pay Revision”. Hence, the respondents submitted that the petitioners are eligible only for revised pension and not pay revision as they are not in service as on 01.01.2006. The petitioners themselves stated in the affidavit that a sum of Rs.23,700/- is the pension that has been drawn by them, (i.e.,) Rs.37,400+Grade Pay of Rs.1000/- for Grade-I Principal and this has been taken into account by the respondents. The petitioners are already receiving the revision of pension applicable under paragraph No. 2(vi) of G.O.Ms.No.235, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 01.06.2009 with effect from 01.01.2006. Hence, the claim of the petitioners to further revise their “Pay” is not justified. As a retired College Teacher, they can claim only revision of pension benefits. It is not appropriate for them to claim re-fixation of their last pay drawn which is applicable to teachers in service. There is no specific clarification in the UGC guidelines. Hence, as per G.O.Ms.No.235, the 12/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.831 of 2014 petitioners are receiving eligible pension, since the petitioners have already retired in 2002 and 2004. The petitioners pension cannot be revised as claimed by them along with revision of pay after their retirement as they have retired much before 01.01.2006.
11. In the additional counter affidavit, it has been stated that the last pay drawn of the first petitioner was Rs.19,550/- and his pension was fixed as Rs.9,775/-. The last pay drawn of the second petitioner was Rs.18,258/- and his pension was fixed as Rs.9,129/-. The last pay drawn of the third petitioner was Rs.13,560/- and his pension was fixed as Rs. 6,000/-. Applying the Government Letter (2D)No.46, Higher Education (H1) Department dated 13.04.2010, all the writ petitioners are eligible only for a sum of Rs.23,700/-. Hence, the respondents pray to dismiss the present writ petition.
13/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.831 of 2014
12. Heard Mr.P.Subramanian, the Learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr.S.Jeyasingh Learned Senior Panel Counsel for the 1st respondent, Mr.J.Alaguram Jothi Learned Counsel for 2nd respondent, Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, the Learned Government Pleader assisted by Mr.D.Farjana Ghoushia Special Government Pleader for 3rd respondent and Mr.P.Gunasekaran the Learned Standing Counsel for 4th respondent and perused the materials on record.
13. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.1785, Education Department dated 05.12.1988 wherein Grade-I Principal having 15 years experience was sanctioned to a college with Post Graduate Courses with more than 1000 students and the post of Grade-II Principal having 10 years experience was sanctioned to a college with Under-Graduate College with less than 1000 students. In G.O.Ms.No.111, Higher Education (H1) Department, dated 24.03.1999, dated 24.03.1999, for Grade-I Principal the scale of pay of Rs.16,400-450-20900-500-22400 was fixed with minimum basic pay will be fixed at Rs.17,300/- with effect from 01.01.1996 and for 14/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.831 of 2014 Grade-II Principal the scale of pay of Rs.12,000-420-18300 was fixed starting with the basic pay of Rs.12,840/-. Hence, the Grade-I and Grade-II Principals were considered as two different categories. In the 5th UGC Pay revision from 01.01.1996 to 31.12.2005, the scale of pay of the Grade-I Principal was 16400-40-20900-500-22400 and the pay scale of the Grade-II Principal was 12000-420-18300.
14. However, in the 6th Central Pay Commission and the UGC Pay Review Committee headed by Dr.Chadha, for the Grade-I Principals who had retired before 01.01.2006, the revised pension was not fixed with reference to the last pay drawn. But the revised pension of the post-01/01/2006 Grade-I Principal was based on their last drawn pay. The contention of the petitioner is that according to the principle of Modified Parity, all the pre-1/1/2006 Grade-I Principals should be given a revised pension which should not be below 50% of the minimum pension admissible to the post-01/01/2006 Grade-I Principal. This brings all pre-01/01/2006 Grade-I Principals on par with the minimum pension 15/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.831 of 2014 applicable to the post-01/01/2006 Grade-I Principal. This Court has given its anxious consideration on the petitioner’s contention. The government has taken a policy decision to “pay revision” and “pension revision” and has fixed a cut of date as 01.01.2006. In G.O. Ms. No. 350 the government has stated that the revised pay scales shall take notional effect from 01.01.2006 with the monetary benefit from 01.01.2007. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
“(J) DATE OF EFFECT:
The revised Pay in the relevant Pay Band and the Academic Grade Pay together with the applicable allowances including arrears of salary as mentioned above shall be paid to all eligible beneficiaries under this Scheme pending issue of Regulations by the UGC. The revised pay scales shall take notional effect from 1st January, 2006 and with monetary benefit from 1st January 2007” Therefore, in the 6th Pay Commission the government has taken a policy decision and fixed the cut of date as 01.01.2006. As well as the government has taken a policy to grant “pension revision” alone to employees who had retired prior to 01.01.2006 and to employees who 16/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.831 of 2014 had retired after 01.01.2006 has decided to grant “pay revision”. Since the petitioners had retired prior to 01.01.2006 they were granted “pension revision” and not “pay revision”. The government has every power and right to fix pay, revise pay, fix pension etc. and revise pension after taking into account the financial implications on the government exchequer. In the present case the government has uniformly revised the “pension revision” to all the employees who had retired prior to 01.01.2006. It is not the case of petitioners that they were discriminated among the employees retired prior to 01.01.2006. The petitioners are comparing with that of employees who had retired after 01.01.2006 which is not permissible. The government has categorically fixed the cut of date as 01.01.2006 in the said G.O. and therefore the petitioner cannot question the cut of date for applicability of pay revision. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not made out any legal ground to interfere with the cut of date.17/35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.831 of 2014
15. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the respondents added fuel to the agony by keeping the retired Grade-I Principals on par with retired Grade-II Principals in the 6th Pay Commission Revision. The petitioner submitted that “Dr. Chadha Pay Review Committee” recommended an Academic Grade pay of Rs. 11,000/- to the pre-revised pay scale of the Grade-I Principal which is Rs.16,400/-450-20900-500/-22,400. Likewise recommended an Academic Grade Pay of Rs.8,700/- to the pre-revised pay scale of the Grade-II Principals is Rs.12,000/-420-18300. But, in the subsequent modification by the Ministry of Human Resources Development (MHRD) and the UGC, the Academic Grade pay of the Grade-I Principal is reduced from Rs.11,000/- to Rs.10,000/- and the Academic Grade Pay of the Grade-II Principal is raised from Rs.8,700 to Rs.10,000/-, thus brings the Grade-I and the Grade-II Principals on par which amounts to downgrading the Grade-I Principal by denying equality of treatment with reference to his pre-revised pay scale. On careful consideration of the petitioner’s contention this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners themselves had accepted that it is only the recommendation 18/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.831 of 2014 of the Dr.Chadha Committee that the amount was increased to 11,000/- from 10,000/- for Grade-I Principals and was increased to 10,000/- from 8,700/- to Grade-II Principals. After considering the recommendation the government has taken a policy decision to grant Rs.10,000/- to both Grade-I Principals and Grade-II Principals and had decided to keep both Grade-I Principals and Grade-II Principals on par after retirement. This policy decision cannot be fault with, since this difference was drawn based on the following criteria:
Grade-I Principals:
Are persons who are having fifteen years experience, posted in Post Graduate college having more than 1000 students Grade-II Principals:
Are persons who are having ten years experience, posted in Under Graduate college having less than 1000 students After retirement this difference no longer exists and therefore the government had decided to merger them and bring into one category and has granted same grade pay of Rs.10,000/-. Therefore this Court is of the 19/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.831 of 2014 considered opinion that the petitioner’s claim is erroneous and the same cannot be granted.
16. The petitioner further relied on the Learned Single Judge judgement rendered in W.P. No.2081 of 2011 and W.P. No. 5906 of 2011 wherein the Learned Judge had held that “there cannot be any difference between serving professors and retired professors in the matter of application of pay in the pay band. Therefore, such argument which appears to be focal point for the government appears to be preposterous and cannot be countenanced”. However the Learned Government Pleader had submitted that there is difference between the serving and retired employees and relied on the definition of the word “Pension”, which means “a fixed amount, other than wages, paid at regular intervals to a person or to the person's surviving dependents in consideration of past services, age, merit, poverty, injury or loss sustained, etc.” 20/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.831 of 2014 Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the pension is paid for the past services and in such circumstances there is a vast difference and as held supra the Government has every right to take a policy decision to revise the salary or to revise the pension.
17. The Learned Counsel for the 4th respondent relied on a judgment rendered in W.P. (MD) No. 9411 of 2011 wherein this Court has held that the pension would be applicable as per the pension scheme which by itself is a self-contained scheme. Also relied on the judgment rendered in W.P.(MD) No.12757 of 2014 it has been held as under:
4. This Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petitioner was admittedly allowed to retire from service on 30.04.1998. His pension was fixed based on the last drawn pay wages. All subsequent revisions of pension are to be done strictly in accordance with the Government Orders and Pay Rules in force. However, it is made clear that the revision of scale of pay granted to the in-service Professors or Principals cannot be directly to the retired Professors or Principals. The scale of pay as applicable to the in service employees cannot be implemented in respect of the employees, who were retired from service. As far as the pensioners are concerned, separate policy decisions are taken by the Government for granting the 21/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.831 of 2014 pensionary benefits. Thus, the scale of pay, revision of pension and all other benefits are granted separately in respect of the in-
service employees and retired employees. This being the concept being followed and is the policy of the Government, the writ petitioner cannot compare with the revision of scale of pay granted to the in-service candidates.
5. The Honourable Supreme Court of India, in many number of decisions, has held that the revision of scale of pay granted to the in-service candidates cannot be claimed by the pensioners. Further, the Apex Court has held that the revision of pension is to be done strictly in accordance with the Pay Rules in force. This being the principles to be followed, the claim of the writ petitioner to grant retrospective pension with effect from the year 2006 cannot be considered by this Court. However, the pension now being disbursed to the writ petitioner shall be verified by the competent authorities and if any of the benefits conferred to the pensioners are not granted to the writ petitioner, then his case can be considered for revision of pension strictly in accordance with the Government Rules, which all are applicable to the pensioners alone. If any mistake is committed in fixing the pension or revision of pension, the said mistake or error also can be corrected. Thus, the respondents are directed to verify the correctness of the pension fixation done in the case of the writ petitioner and accordingly, revise the pension, if any mistake is found in the fixation of pension to the writ petitioner. If there is no mistake, then the existing pension, as applicable to the cadre in which the writ petitioner had worked, is to be granted and the said pension amount is to be disbursed.
This Court is of the considered opinion that the aforesaid two judgments have held that the pension is revised based on the policy decision or scheme and the power of judicial review is limited and therefore this 22/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.831 of 2014 Court is declined to interfere with the policy decision of the government to revise only the pension alone to the petitioners.
18. The Learned Counsel for the 4th respondent had submitted that the revision of pension challenged in the present writ petition was granted vide Letter No. 2(D) No. 45 dated 13.04.2010. The said letter along with annexure is extracted hereunder:
Annexure Letter No.(2D)No.46, Dated 13.04.2010 Ready Reckoner for calculation of Pension/Family Pension with reference to the minimum of the revised pay scale + Grade Pay based on the recommendations of the UGC VI pay revision.
S. Name of the post Pre-revised Existing Revised Pension= Family N scale of pay scales of Pay Band 50% of sum Pension=3 o. with effect from Pay with Scale of of minimum 0% of sum 01.01.1986 effect from pay and of revised of 01.01.1996 Grade Pay scale +AGP minimum (UGC (UGC of revised scales of scales of scale + pay) pay) AGP Rs.
Rs.
23/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.831 of 2014 1 Lecturer/College 2200-75- 8000-275-1 15600- 10800 6480 Librarian/ 2800-100- 3500 39100+600 Director of 4000 0 Physical Education Lecturer Senior 3000-100- 10000-325- 15600-391 11300 6780 Scale 3500-125- 5000 15200 00+7000 Lecturer Selection 3700-125-4950- 12000-420- 15600-391 11800 7080 Grade 150-5700 18300 00+8000 Lecturer SG with three years 3700-125-4950- 12000-420- 37400-670 23200 13920 150-5700 18300 00+9000 2 Principal Grade II 3700-125-4950- 12000-420- 37400-670 23700 14220 150-5700 18300 00+10000 (Fixed in the minimum of Rs.
12840) 24/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.831 of 2014 3 a) Principal Grade 4500-150-5700 16400-450- 37400-670 23700 14220 I +200-7300 20900-50-2 00+10000
b) Joint Director 2400 of Collegiate (Fixed in the Education minimum of Rs.17,300/-
c) Deputy Director of Collegiate Education (Prior to 14.09.94) K.Ganesan, Principal Secretary to Government (True Copy) Section Officer.
The Learned Counsel further submitted that the government had further revised the pension vide Letter (2D) No. 4 dated 04.02.2019 and the petitioner has not challenged this revision at all. The same principle and formula are adopted in this revision also. In other words that the employees who were retired were granted only pension revision and not pay revision. The petitioners are not aggrieved over the subsequent 25/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.831 of 2014 revision applicable from 04.02.2019 onwards. The relevant letter along with annexure is extracted hereunder:
Annexure to Letter (2D) No.4, dated 04.02.2019.
Ready Reckoner (Concordance Table) for calculation of Pension/Family Pension as per the Revised UGC Scales of Pay for Teachers and equivalent cadres in Universities: Government/Government Aided College governed by UGC with reference to the minimum of the pay in the revised pay structure.
Sl. Pre Pre- Pre Pre revised Existing Revised Academic Revised No revised revis revise Scale of Pay Pension/Famil Pay Level of the Pension/family . Scale ed d wef y Pension wrt Pay Matrix wef Pension wrt w.e.f Scale Scale 01-01-2006 minimum of 01-01-2016 minimum of 01-01- of of the existing (Notional) mbf the revised pay 1986 Pay Pay pay scale 01-10-2017 Level of the wef wef pay Matrix 01-0 01-01 1-19 -1996 Pay Acad 50% of 30% of Acad Minimum- 50% of 30% 86 Band emic Mini. Mini. emic Maximum Mini. of of + Grad of PB of PB Level Pay Mini.
e Pay + GP + GP Level of Pay
Level
Pensio Family Pension Family
n pensio Pensio
n n
26/35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.831 of 2014 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) 1 Lectur 2200 8000- 15600- 6000 10800 6480 10 57700-1824 28850 17310 er/Assi -75-2 275-1 39100 00 stant 800- 3600 Profes 100-
sor/Co 4000 llege Librari an/Col lege Direct or of Physic al Educat ion/As sistant Profes sion with AGP Rs.
600027/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.831 of 2014 2 SENI 3000 1000 15600- 7000 11300 6780 11 68900-2055 34450 20670 OR -100- 0-325 39100 00 SCAL 3500 -1520 E: -125- 0 Lectur 5000 er/ Assista nt Profes sor/ Colleg e Librari an/ Colleg e Direct or of Physic al Educat ion or Assista nt Profes sor with AGP Rs.
700028/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.831 of 2014 3 SELE 3700 1200 15600- 8000 11800 7080 12 79800-2115 39900 23940 CTIO -125- 0-420 39100 00 N 4950 -1830 GRAD -150- 0 E 5700 Lectur er:
Assista nt Profes sor/Co llege Librari an/Phy sical Educat ion or Reader or Assista nt Profes sor with AGP Rs.8000 29/35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.831 of 2014
4 Selecti ---- ----- 37400- 9000 23200 13920 13A 131400-217 65700 39420 on 67000 100 Grade with three years:
Lectur er/Assi stant Profes sor/Co llege Librari an/Col lege Direct or of Physic al Educat ion/Re ader or Associ ate Profes ssor 30/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.831 of 2014
5 Profes 3700 1200 37400- 9000 23200 13920 13A 131400-217 65700 39420 sors -125- 0-420 67000 100 with 4950 -1830 19 -150- 0 years 5700 of total service retired prior to 01.01.
1986
6. Princip ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- ----- 13A 131400-217 65700 39420 al 100 Grade II (after 06-07- 2018) 7 Princip 3700 1200 37400- 1000 23700 14220 14 144200-218 72100 43260 al -125- 0-420 67000 0 200 Grade 4950 -1830 II -150- 0 (prior 5700 (Fixe to d in 06.07. the 2018) mini mum of Rs.
1284
0)-
31/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.831 of 2014 8 Princip 4500 1640 37400- 1090 23700 14220 13A 144200-218 72100 43260 al -150- 0-450 67000 000 200 Grade 5700 -2090 I/Joint -200- 0-500 Direct 7300 -2240 or of 0 Colleg (Fixe iate d in Educat the ion/De mini puty mum Direct of Rs.
or of 1730
Colleg 0)
iate
Educat
ion
(Prior
to
14.09.
1994)
Mangat Ram Sharma,
Principal Secretary to Government
(True Copy)
Section Officer.
On perusal of both the letters it is seen that for the revision of pension, the government has taken a separate policy decision and the same 32/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.831 of 2014 method is being followed all these years. The decision is being taken after taking into account the financial status of the government and the judicial review in such decision is limited.
19. Therefore this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have not made out any case to interfere with the policy decision of the government and hence the writ petition fails.
20. For the above reasons the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
09.09.2022
Index :Yes/No
ssb
33/35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.831 of 2014 To
1.The Union of India, Rep.by its Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi-110 001.
2.The University Grants Commission, Rep.by its Secretary, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002.
3.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Principal Secretary Department of Higher Education, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
4.The Accountant General of Tamil Nadu, No.300, Anna Salai, Chennai.
34/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.831 of 2014 S.SRIMATHY, J.
ssb Order made in W.P.(MD)No.831 of 2014 Dated:
09.09.2022 35/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis