Madras High Court
P.Kanniyappan vs The Registrar General on 16 July, 2018
Author: M.Venugopal
Bench: M.Venugopal, M.Nirmal Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 16.07.2018 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL and THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR W.P.No.17870 of 2018 P.Kanniyappan .. Petitioner Vs 1.The Registrar General, Madras High Court, Chennai 600 104. 2.The Principal District Judge, Kanchipuram @ Chengalpet, Chengalpet. 3.The Accountant General, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the 2nd respondent to pass an orders on the petitioner's representation dated 17.01.2018 within the stipulated period as fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Parthasarathy For RR 1 & 2 : Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran For 3rd Respondent : Mr.V.Vijay Shankar O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by M.VENUGOPAL, J.] Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner; Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran, Learned Counsel takes notice for Respondents 1 & 2 and Mr.V.Vijay Shankar, Learned Counsel takes notice for the 3rd Respondent.
2.The Petitioner was appointed as Masalchi in the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chengalpet in the year 1982 and on 08.06.1983, his probation was declared. He was promoted as Office Assistant in the year 1987. Later on 05.03.2003 he was promoted as Process Server and on 14.10.2005 he was promoted as Senior Bailiff and retired from service on 30.06.2011 without any bad remarks.
3.The stand of the Petitioner is that while he was serving as a Special Grade Office Assistant on 09.06.2002. His pay was fixed as Rs.3240/- + 60 PP + 75 CCP. After his promotion as Process Server with increment, his pay was fixed as Rs.3520 + 60 + 75 CCP with effect from 01.04.2003. By means of Government Letter dated 08.11.2010, the pay scale for the post of process was increased from Rs.2650/- + Rs.4590/-. Whereas the 2nd Respondent/Principal District Judge, Kanchipuram at Chengalpet, without properly calculating his pay for 22 days prior to his retirement on 08.06.2011, recovered Rs.29,676/- + 665 from his DCRG and the said recovery was made wrongly calculating his salary as Rs.3380 + 60 + 65 as on 31.03.2003, whereas his pay was Rs.3520 + 60 + 65 and later from 01.04.2003 he was paid a salary in the scale of pay of Rs.3725 + 60 + 75. In fact, as early as on 02.11.2005 he had relinquishment his right of promotion to the post of Junior Assistant.
4.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that as per G.O.Ms.No.63 dated 26.02.2011 he is eligible for grant pay of Rs.2400/- and Special Grade Pay of Rs.75/- as per G.O.Ms.No.426 dated 24.09.1999. Apart from that, the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.P.No.8816 of 2008 had directed the 2nd Respondent to pay 5% enhanced pay from 02.11.2005. As per revised pay scale, the Petitioner was drawing Rs.5200 20,200 + GP 2000/-. As such, his pay scale and pension were to be calculated properly from 01.04.2005 in regard to arrears of salary, DCRG, EL, UEL on P.a., Pension, Commutation. Furthermore, the deducted sum of Rs.29,676/- + Rs.665/- was reimbursed and also, he is entitled for pension as per VII Pay Commission.
5.It transpires that the Petitioner on 14.07.2011, 30.07.2016 and 19.04.2017 had addressed a representation to the 2nd Respondent to revise his pension proposal and reimburse the recovered amount. It appears that no orders were passed. Again on 17.01.2018, the Petitioner sent a representation to the 1st Respondent seeking the above relief. On receipt of his representation dated 17.01.2018, on 05.03.2018, the 1st Respondent/Registrar General of this Court had forwarded his representation to the 2nd Respondent/Principal District Judge, Kanchipuram at Chengalpet for necessary action. Although nearly four months had elapsed, no orders have been passed on his representation dated 17.01.2018.
6.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner makes a forceful submission that the 2nd Respondent/Principal District Judge, Kanchipuram at Chengalpet is bound to pass necessary orders on the Petitioner's representation dated 17.01.2018 within a stipulated time. Since nothing tangible has been done in the subject matter in issue, the Petitioner has approached this Court, by filing the present Writ of Mandamus seeking for issuance of necessary direction to the 2nd Respondent to pass an order on his representation dated 17.01.2018.
7.It is evident that the Officer of the 1st Respondent in R.O.C.No.5636/2018/G2 dated 05.03.2018 had addressed a communication to the 2nd Respondent/Principal District Judge, Kanchipuram at Chengalpet, by enclosing a copy of the petition of the Petitioner in original for taking necessary action at latter's end and sought a Compliance Report at the earliest. Although nearly four months had gone by, there is no progression in the subject matter in issue. Therefore, this Court, on the basis of Equity, Fair Play, Good Conscience and even as a matter of prudence [without going into the merits of the matter and also not expressing any opinion one way or other on the representation of the Petitioner dated 17.01.2018], at this stage, directs the 2nd Respondent/ Principal District Judge, Kanchipuram at Chengalpet to look into the representation of the Petitioner dated 17.01.2018 and also the proceedings of the Officer of the 1st Respondent in Roc.No.5636/ 2018/G2 dated 05.03.2018 with all earnestness and seriousness and to dispose of the said representation, by passing a reasoned speaking order on merits, of course, outlining the process of reasoning in a qualitative and quantitative manner. It cannot be gainsaid that in case, if the Petitioner requires any oral hearing, based on his request, the 2nd Respondent/Principal District Judge, Kanchipuram at Chengalpet shall grant the same and it is open to the Petitioner to avail that opportunity to put forward his views/ grievances if he so desires/so advised. Soon after disposal of the representation dated 17.01.2018 and the communication of the 1st Respondent dated 05.03.2018 by the 2nd Respondent/Principal District Judge, Kanchipuram at Chengalpet, he shall address a Report of Compliance to the Registrar (Judicial), High Court, Madras without fail.
8.With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[M.V., J.] [M.N.K, J.]
16.07.2018
Speaking Order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Sgl
To
1.The Registrar General,
Madras High Court,
Chennai 600 104.
2.The Principal District Judge,
Kanchipuram @ Chengalpet,
Chengalpet.
3.The Accountant General,
Anna Salai, Teynampet,
Chennai 600 018.
4.The Registrar (Judicial),
High Court, Madras.
[For favour of information and
necessary follow up action]
5.The Government Advocate,
High Court, Madras.
M.VENUGOPAL, J.
AND
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
Sgl
W.P.No.17870 of 2018
16.07.2018