Madras High Court
C.Robinson vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 27 June, 2025
W.P.(MD) No.17265 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 20.06.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 27.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
W.P. (MD) No.17265 of 2016
and
W.M.P. (MD) No.12534 of 2016
C.Robinson,
Inspector of Police (Retired),
No.64J, 1st Cross Street,
Christopher Nagar Colony Extn-II
Nagercoil-629 003,
Kanyakumari District. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Home (Police III) Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director General of Police,
Kamarajar Salai,
Chennai-600 004.
3.The Inspector General of Police,
C.I.D. (Intelligence),
Chennai-600 004.
4.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
C.I.D. (Intelligence),
Chennai-600 004.
1/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 05:00:16 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.17265 of 2016
5.The Superintendent of Police,
Branch C.I.D.,
Chennai-600 004. ... Respondents
PRAYER in W.P.:
To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or appropriate Writ or
Order or Direction in the nature of calling Writ, for the records pertaining
to the impugned Memorandum passed by the 2nd respondent in Rc.No.
198922/PBA II (1) /2014, dated 02.06.2016 and the impugned letter
passed by the 1st respondent in Letter No.4344/Pol.3/2015-4, dated
06.01.2016 and the impugned proposal passed by the 5th respondent in
C.No.C3/Q/Pen/2014/2013, dated 07.11.2013, quash the same, and direct
the 1st respondent to condone the alleged delay of 10 months in
exercising the petitioner's re-option as per G.O.Ms.No.240 dated
22.07.2013 and to accept his re-option dated 25.11.2014, revise his pay
with effect from 16.07.2007 after awarding Selection Grade to him in the
post of Inspector of Police and fix his pay at the appropriate pay band,
and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
PRAYER IN W.M.P.:
To dispense with the production of the original impugned
Memorandum passed by the 2nd respondent in RC.NO.198922/PBA
II[l]/2014, dated 02.06.2016 and the impugned letter passed by the 1st
respondent in Letter No.4344/Pol.3/2015-4dated 06.01.2016 and the
impugned proposal passed by the Sth respondent in C.No.C3/Q/Pen/
2014/2013, dated 07.11.2013 and thus render justice.
2/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 05:00:16 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.17265 of 2016
APPEARANCE OF PARTIES:
For Petitioner : Mr. R. Subramanian.
For Respondents : Mr. V. Omprakash, GA, for R1 to R5.
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2. The facts of the case: The petitioner served in the Tamil Nadu Police Department for 37 years with an unblemished record and retired on 30.04.2008 as Inspector of Police, ‘Q’ Branch C.I.D., Kanyakumari District. He was the recipient of several commendations, including the Kendal Humanity Medal, Chief Minister’s Constabulary and Anna Medals, and the President’s Police Medal for Meritorious Service. He was awarded Selection Grade on 16.07.2007, and his pay was initially fixed in the pre-revised scale of Rs.8000–275–13500 by order dated 03.09.2007 issued by the 5th respondent.
3. Pursuant to G.O. Ms. No. 234, Finance (Pay Cell), dated 01.06.2009, the Government implemented the revised pay structure with notional effect from 01.01.2006 and monetary benefit from 01.01.2007. 3/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 05:00:16 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.17265 of 2016 However, the G.O. did not explicitly include Selection Grade posts in the replacement scales. Subsequently, G.O. Ms. No. 237 dated 22.07.2013 granted an additional increment benefit (3% + 3%) to employees awarded Selection/Special Grade between 01.01.2006 and 31.05.2009, and G.O. Ms. No. 240 of the same date permitted such employees to exercise re-option for revised pay fixation within six months, i.e., by 21.01.2014. These G.Os were available only on the official website, and the petitioner, having settled post-retirement in a remote area in Nagercoil with no access to internet or computer and suffering from chronic medical ailments including post-bypass heart disease and cervical spondylosis, remained unaware of them during the option period.
4. On 07.11.2013, the 5th respondent, without obtaining any option, fixed the petitioner’s pay in the revised scale of Rs.9300–34800 with Grade Pay of Rs.4600, allegedly based on G.O. Ms. No. 237. This fixation, however, failed to place him in the correct revised scale of Rs.15600–39100 with Grade Pay of Rs.5400, corresponding to his Selection Grade post.
4/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 05:00:16 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.17265 of 2016
5. Upon learning of the relevant G.Os belatedly, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 25.11.2014 formally exercising re-option under Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 2009, seeking pay re-fixation from 16.07.2007. The 2nd respondent, by letter dated 06.01.2016, forwarded the request with supporting documents and a favourable recommendation to the 1st respondent. However, the 1st respondent, by letter dated 11.02.2016, rejected the plea citing expiry of the option period. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent, by memorandum dated 02.06.2016, refused to revise the petitioner’s pay on the same ground.
6. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the impugned communications dated 02.06.2016, 06.01.2016, and 07.11.2013, and for a direction to condone the delay, accept his re-option, re-fix his pay in the correct revised scale from 16.07.2007, and extend all consequential monetary and pensionary benefits.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner, having retired on 30.04.2008, had settled in a remote locality with no 5/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 05:00:16 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.17265 of 2016 access to internet facilities and was also suffering from multiple ailments. Owing to these constraints, he remained unaware of the Government Orders issued in G.O. Ms. No. 240, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 22.07.2013. It was further contended that the department prematurely fixed the Petitioner’s pay even before the expiry of the re- option window prescribed under the said G.O., and by doing so, effectively deprived the Petitioner of a fair opportunity to exercise the option within the stipulated period. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader contended that the petitioner had failed to exercise the re-option within the stipulated time frame prescribed under the relevant Government Order, and that there is no provision enabling extension of the said time limit once it had lapsed.
8. The Petitioner is a retired Inspector of Police from one of the elite branches of the 1st Respondent police i.e. the ‘Q’ branch. It is a most sensitive branch in the police force and virtually a wing for political spying of extremists. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot feign ignorance of the happenings within his own department. The petitioner claims ignorance of such a communication calling for option claiming that he was in a remote are near Nagercoil which itself is 6/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 05:00:16 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.17265 of 2016 unbelievable since Kanyakumari district is one of the advanced districts in Tamil Nadu.
9. While this Court initially found the submission as regards the premature fixation of the petitioner’s pay as plausible during oral hearing, upon closer scrutiny of the records, this court finds that the argument cannot be sustained in law. A thorough examination of the materials on record, including G.O. Ms. No. 240 and the impugned order dated 06.01.2016, reveals that the Government had granted a final and one-time opportunity to eligible employees to exercise re-option strictly within a three-month period from the date of issuance, i.e. on or before 21.01.2014.
10. The Petitioner got retired as early as in the year 2008 and the present grievance is almost 17 years old. The Petitioner was given revision of scale as well as fitment according to the recommendations of the Pay Committee. However, at that time, before his retirement, no selection grade pay was given and the said decision was taken later. Accordingly, options were called for to exercise option to proper fitment of the selection grade scale. The Petitioners belated claim 7/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 05:00:16 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.17265 of 2016 was sought to be rejected by the order of the Govt. (R1) dt.6.1.2016.
11. It is necessary to refer to the text of the impugned order which is as follows:-
“Home (Police-III) Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9 Letter No.4344/Pol.3/2015-4, dated 6.1.2016
1. 1 am directed to refer to your letter cited wherein orders have been requested on the pay fixation of Thiru.Robinson, Inspector of Police (retired), Kanniyakumari District in the post of Selection Grade Inspector of Police with effect from 16.7.2007.
2 In this connection, I am to state that generally, the employees have been permitted to exercise their option within a period of three months from the date of issue of clarification or orders revising the regularization of service or grant of Selection Grade / Special Grade with retrospective effect, as the case may be. However, based on the recommendations of the Pay Grievance Redressal Cell in G.O.(Ms.)No.240, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 22-07-2013, the Government have given a final opportunity for exercising re-option, as a one time measure in case where option could not be exercised within time limit, due to the delayed reach of instruction issued by Government.
Moreover, the above said Government Order has been hosted in the Government website. Hence, the exercising of option within the stipulated time with reference to G.O.Ms.No.240, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 22.7.2013 is a final and one time measure, which cannot be relaxed.
3. In the instant case, the individual has exercised his re- option only on-25-11-2014 (i.e.) after a lapse of issue of 8/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 05:00:16 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.17265 of 2016 G.O.Ms.No.240, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 22.7.2013. I am, therefore, to inform that the request of Thiru Robinson, Inspector of Police (retired), Kanniyakumari District exercising re-option for pay fixation with effect from 16.7.2007, in the post of Selection Grade Inspector of police cannot be conceded and it is rejected. A suitable reply may be given to the above individual, in this regard.
4.The service Book of Thiru.Robinson, Inspector of Police (retired), Kanniyakumari District is returned herewith. The receipt of the same may be acknowledged at the earliest.”
12. The Petitioner was aggrieved by non-grant of yet another option seeking for grant of selection grade and that the department finalized the pay fixation even before the expiry of the option period. Even assuming that pay fixation was processed prematurely before the expiry of the cut- off date on 07.11.2013 such action by the department cannot enlarge the legal rights of the Petitioner or override a clearly worded policy uniformly applicable to all. Admittedly, the Petitioner did not exercise his option within the stipulated time; the prescribed deadline expired on 21.10.2013, whereas the Petitioner submitted his option belatedly only on 25.11.2014 more than a year later. The Petitioner, if diligent, ought to have submitted his option on or before 21.10.2013, irrespective of the department’s internal processing. As a litigant, the burden lies upon the Petitioner to establish his entitlement based on his own pleadings and 9/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 05:00:16 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.17265 of 2016 conduct. He may not seek to derive advantage merely from any procedural action taken by the department, especially when he himself failed to comply with the time-bound requirement. It is a settled proposition of law that a party must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the opponent. Further, there is not even an iota of material to show how the early pay fixation prevented him from exercising his option within the prescribed time. Public administration must operate within a framework of certainty and finality. Options, by their nature, involve deadlines, and retirees are not exempt from adhering to such timelines. The Government cannot be expected to keep the option window open indefinitely, particularly when the process for another round of pay revision is already underway. Therefore, the argument raised on petitioner side is both factually untenable and legally unsustainable.
13. In this context, it is necessary to refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Krishena Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in 1990 (4) SCC 207 wherein the court upheld the refusal to give yet another option for the retirees and confirmed the order of the Railways. It was held as follows:-
10/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 05:00:16 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.17265 of 2016 “The cut-off dates were not arbitrarily chosen but had nexus with the purpose for which the option was given.”
14. Further the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 04.03.2024 in W.P No. 29067 of 2019 (2024: MHC: 1339) held as follows:
“4. Regarding the fixation of cut off date in economic policy/fixation of pay, the Government is empowered to fix such cut off dates. The principles laid down in D.S.Nakara's case was watered down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments.
4.1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Ali Imam and others Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2020) 5 Supreme Court Cases 685 held as follows:
“.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents have pointed out that much water flowed after that judgment and inter alia, invited our attention to the judgment in State of W.B. V. Ratan Behari Dey (referred to in the impugned judgment itself) opining that it is open to the State or the Corporation to change the conditions of service unilaterally, and terminal benefits as well as pensionary benefits constitute conditions of service. Thus, the power to revise salaries and/or pay scales, as also terminal benefits/pensioners benefit can be made as a concomitant of that power so long as the date is specified in a reasonable manner.”
9. .....
10. .....
11.Apart from this, there may be other considerations in the mind of the executive authority while fixing a particular date i.e. economic conditions, financial constraints, administrative and other circumstances, and if no reason is forthcoming 11/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 05:00:16 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.17265 of 2016 from the executive for fixation of a particular date, it should not be interfered with by the Court unless the cut-off date leads to some blatantly capricious or outrageous result. In such cases, it has been opined that there must be exercise of judicial restraint and such matters ought to be left to the executive authorities, to fix the cut-off date, and the Government thus, must be left with some leeway and free play at the joints in this connection. Even if no particular reasons are given for the cut-off date by the Government, the choice of cut-off date cannot be held to be arbitrary (unless, it is shown to be totally capricious or whimsical)-State of A.P. v.
N.Subbarayudu.” 4.2 In the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh and others Vs. N.Subbarayudu and Others reported in 2008 14 SCC 702, the Apex Court ruled as follows:
“5.In a catena of decisions of this Court it has been held that the cut-off date is fixed by the executive authority keeping in view the economic conditions, financial constraints and many other administrative and other attending circumstances. This Court is also of the view that fixing cut-off dates is within the domain of the executive authority and the court should not normally interfere with the fixation of cut- off date by the executive authority unless such order appears to be on the face of it blatantly discriminatory and arbitrary.
6. No doubt in D.S.Nakara V.Union of India this Court had struck down the cut-off date in connection with the demand of pension. However, in subsequent decisions this Court has considerably watered down the rigit view taken in Nakara case as observed in para 29 of the decision of this Court in State of Punjab V. Amar Nath Goyal.
7. There may be various consideration in the mind of the executive authorities due to which a particular cut-off date has been fixed. These considerations can be financial, administrative or other considerations.12/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 05:00:16 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.17265 of 2016 The court must exercise judicial restraint and must ordinarily leave it to the executive authorities to fix the cut-off date. The Government must be left with some leeway and free play at the joints in this connection.
8. In fact several decisions of this Court have gone to the extent of saying that the choice of a cut-off date cannot be dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular reason is given for the same in the counter-affidavit filed by the Government (unless it is shown to be totally capricious or whimsical), vide State of Buhar V. Ramjee Prasad, Union of India v. Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal (vide SCC para 5), Ramrao v. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Assn. (vide SCC para 31), University Grants Commission v. Sadhana Chaudhary, etc. It follows, therefore, that even if no reasons has been given in the counter- affidavit of the Government or the executive authority as to why a particular cut-off date has been chosen, the court must still not declare that date to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 unless the said cut-off date leads to some blatantly capricious or outrageous result.
9. As has been held by this Court in Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass and in Govt. of A.P. v.
P.Laxmi Devi the Court must maintain judicial restraint in matters relating to the legislative or executive domain.” 4.3 In the case of State of Tripura and others Vs. Anjana Bhattacharjee and others reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1071, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
“17. When specific statistics were provided before the High Court justifying its policy decision and the financial crunch/financial constraint was pleaded, there was no reason for the High Court to doubt the same. As such the findings recorded by the High Court in the impugned judgment and order is contrary to the averments made in affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government. From the affidavit 13/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 05:00:16 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.17265 of 2016 filed before the High Court reproduced hereinabove, we are satisfied that a conscious policy decision was taken by the State Government to grant the benefit of revision of pension notionally from 01.01.2006 or from the date of superannuation till 31.12.2008 and to pay/grant the benefit of revision of pension actually from 01.01.2009. which was based on their financial crunch/financial constraint.
18. Whether the financial crunch/financial constraint due to additional financial burden can be a valid ground to fix a cut-off date for the purpose of granting the actual benefit of revision of pension/pay has been dealt with and/or considered by this Court in the case of Amar Nath Goyal (supra). In the aforesaid decision, it is observed and held as under:-
“26.It is difficult to accede to the argument on behalf of the employees that a decision of the Central Government/State Governments to limit the benefits only to employees, who retire or die on or after 01.04.1995, after calculating the financial implications thereon, was either irrational or arbitrary. Financial and economic implications are very relevant and germane for any policy decision touching the administration of the Government, at the Centre or at the State level.
XXX XXX XXX
32. The importance of considering financial implications, while providing benefits for employees, has been noted by this Court in numerous judgments including the following two cases: In State of Rajasthan v. Amrit Lal Gandhi [(1997) 2 SCC 342 :
1997 SCC (L&S) 512 : AIR 1997 SC 782] this Court went so as far as to note that: “Financial impact of making the Regulations retrospective can be the sole consideration while fixing a cutoff date. In our opinion, it cannot be said that this cut-off date was fixed arbitrarily or without any reason. The High Court was clearly in error in allowing the Writ Petitions and substituting the date of 01.01.1986-01.01.1990.” 14/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 05:00:16 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.17265 of 2016
33. More recently, in Veerasamy [(1999) 3 SCC 414 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 717] this Court observed that, financial constraints could be a valid ground for introducing a cut-off date while implementing a pension scheme on a revised basis [supra fn 2 SCC at p.421 (para 15).]. In that case, the pension scheme applied differently to persons who had retired from service before 01.07.1986, and those who were in employment on the said date. It was held that they could not be treated alike as they did not belong to one class and they formed separate classes.”
19. In the aforesaid decision this Court after considering the earlier decisions of this Court in the cases of State of Punjab v. Boota Singh (2000) 3 SCC 733 and State of Punjab v.J.L.Gupta, (2000) 3 SCC 736, it is specifically observed and held that for grant of additional benefit, which had financial implications, the prescription of a specific future date for conferment of additional benefit, could not be considered arbitrary.
20.In the subsequent decision in Bihar Pensioners Samaj (supra), the decision in the case of Amar Nath Goyal (supra) is followed and it is observed and held that financial constraints could be a valid ground for introducing a cut-
off date while introducing a pension scheme on revised basis. It is further observed and held by this Court in the aforesaid decision that fixing of a cut-off date for granting of benefits is well within the powers of the Government as long as the reasons therefor are not arbitrary and are based on some rational consideration.”
5. In view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court, the ground raised by the petitioners that the cut off date fixed by the Government is in consonance with the legal principles....” 15/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 05:00:16 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.17265 of 2016
15. The Petitioner by merely sending representations cannot keep a dead cause of action. Hence there is no case made out to entertain the writ petition. The Writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
27.06.2025 ay Index: Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order Neutral Citation : Yes / No 16/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 05:00:16 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.17265 of 2016 To
1.The Principal Secretary, Home (Police III) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai-600 004.
3.The Inspector General of Police, C.I.D. (Intelligence), Chennai-600 004.
4.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.I.D. (Intelligence), Chennai-600 004.
5.The Superintendent of Police, Branch C.I.D., Chennai-600 004.
17/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 05:00:16 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.17265 of 2016 DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J ay Pre-Delivery Judgment made in W.P. (MD) No.17265 of 2016 and W.M.P. (MD) No.12534 of 2016 27.06.2025 18/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 05:00:16 pm )