Madras High Court
K.Manoharan vs The Principal District Judge on 22 March, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
W.P.No.22043 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.03.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.P.No.22043 of 2022
and
W.M.P.No.21047 of 2022
K.Manoharan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Principal District Judge,
Cuddalore District, District Court,
Cuddalore – 607 001.
2. The Accountant General,
Office of the Accountant General
(Accounts & Entitlement),
361, Anna Salai, Teynampet,
Chennai – 600 018.
3. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Home (Courts V) Department,
Secretariat, Fort St George,
Chennai – 600 009.
4. The Registrar General,
High Court, Madras,
High Court Buildings,
Chennai – 600 104. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.22043 of 2022
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1 st
respondent dated 16.12.2021 returning the Application dated 06.03.2020 of
the petitioner for release of the withheld amount of Rs.1,02,693/- from the
DCRG of the petitioner, quash the same and direct the respondents to pay
the amount of Rs.1,02,693/- to the petitioner along with interest @12% p.a
and issue such further or other orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.P.Prasanth Gopal
For R1 & R4 : Mr.K.Elango
For R2 : Mr.V.Vijay Shankar
For R3 : Mrs.P.Raja Rajeswari,
Government Advocate
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.) The returning of the application dated 06.03.2021 by the 1st respondent in proceedings dated 16.12.2021 is under challenge in the present Writ Petition. Further direction is sought for to direct the respondents to pay the amount of Rs.1,02,693/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
2. The grievances of the writ petitioner are that a sum of Rs.1,02,693/- was recovered from his Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) at the time of his retirement. The Government subsequently granted waiver of excess salary paid to the Junior Bailiff. Therefore, the writ petitioner is entitled to Page 2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.22043 of 2022 avail the benefit of waiver granted by the Government in the year 2017.
3. The writ petitioner was initially appointed as Gardener in District Court, Cuddalore. He was promoted as Process Server in the year 1983 and the post was re-designated as Junior Bailiff. He was awarded Selection Grade and Special Grade in the post of Junior Baliff with effect from 21.02.1993 and 28.02.2003 respectively. Accordingly, his pay was re-fixed. The writ petitioner was allowed to retire from service on 14.09.2010. After his retirement, he filed an application on 06.03.2023 before the 1st respondent to release the recovered amount of Rs.1,02,693/-, which was recovered from DCRG of the writ petitioner at the time of retirement. The 1st respondent found that the writ petitioner was not eligible to claim such a relief and returned the application. Thereafter, the writ petitioner had not represented the same and filed the Writ Petition.
4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Mr.C.P.Prasanth Gopal mainly relied on the Government clarificatory letter dated 30.08.2017, which states that the excess payment made to the Junior Bailiff stood waived as a special case. When the excess salary had been waived, the writ petitioner is also entitled for the benefit and consequently, the recovered portion of the Page 3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.22043 of 2022 DCRG is to be repaid to the writ petitioner. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner would further submit that point of delay would not arise in this case, since the Government clarified the issue and granted waiver in the year 2017. Thereafter, the cause aroused and the writ petitioner filed an application. Thus, return of the application is perverse and a direction is to be issued to repay the recovered portion of the DCRG amount.
5. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner was allowed to retire from service on 14.09.2010. The revision of grade pay to the Junior Bailiff in District Courts were granted by the Government in G.O (Ms) No.193, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 06.07.2015. According to the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay, 2009, the Government directed that the clarification issued in the Government letter dated 13.05.2014 was cancelled with immediate effect. The Junior Bailiff in District Courts be appropriately placed at Rs.5200-20200 + Grade Pay Rs.2200 one level below the Senior Bailiffs in District Courts (Rs.5200-20,200 + Grade Pay Rs.2400) with notional effect from 01.01.2006 and monetary effect from the date of issue of this order (i.e.,06.07.2015). The relevant paragraphs of the Government Order reads as under:-
Page 4 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.22043 of 2022 “ 8. The Government after careful consideration direct that the clarification issued in the Government letter fourth read above be cancelled with immediate effect and the Junior Bailiff in District Courts be appropriately placed at Rs. 5200-20200 +Grade pay Rs.2200 one level below Senior Bailiffs in District Courts Rs. 5200-20200+ Grade Pay Rs. 2400) with notional effect from 1.1.2006 and monetary effect from the date of issue of this Order.
9. The Government also direct that the excess payment made based on the clarification issued in the Government letter fourth read above if any be waived as a special case.
10. Consequent on the revision of Ordinary Grade scale if any of Junior Bailiff as Rs.5200-20200 + Grade pay Rs.2200 the Selection Grade and Special Grade of pay shall be Rs.5200-20200 +Grade pay Rs.2400 and the Rs.5200-20200 +Grade pay Rs.2800 respectively as per Government letter No.63306/Pay Cell/2010-1 Finance dated 08.11.2010.
11. The Registrar General High Court shall issue necessary instructions to all the Principal District Judges to re-fix the pay of Junior Bailiff in the District Courts in the appropriate pay scales as ordered above.”
6. The Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay, 2009 issued regarding revision of Grade Pay to the Junior Bailiffs in District Courts were ordered in G.O (Ms).No. 193, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 06.07.2015. The said Government Order unambiguously stipulates that the revised pay Page 5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.22043 of 2022 granted to the Junior Bailiffs will take notionally with effect from 01.01.2006 and actual monetary benefit is to be granted from the date of issue of G.O (Ms) No. 193, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 06.07.2015. As on the date of the said Government order, the writ petitioner was not in service and admittedly retired from service on 14.09.2010. The said Government Order issued in G.O (Ms) No.193 was not extended to the retired employees, who had retired prior to the issuance of Government Order. Therefore, the writ petitioner relying on the clarification issued by the Government in letter dated 30.08.2017 cannot have any claim.
7. The financial benefits of revision of Grade Pay to the Junior Bailiff was granted with effect from 06.07.2015 prospectively. The excess pay already made was waived as a special case. However, the writ petitioner was allowed to retire from service on 14.09.2010 and the Pay Rules applicable as on that date was implemented. Consequently, a sum of Rs.1,02,693/- was recovered at the time of retirement from the writ petitioner. The subsequent Government Order issued by the Finance Department would be applicable only to the in-service candidates. Thus, the writ petitioner cannot seek repayment of the amount, which was recovered in the year 2010. Thus, the Page 6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.22043 of 2022 writ petitioner has not made out the case for repayment. More so, the application filed by the writ petitioner in the year 2014 was rejected by the learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore in Office Order No.185/2015 dated 20.10.2015. The said order was not challenged by the writ petitioner. After a lapse of about five years thereafter, he filed a fresh application in the year 2020, which was returned. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. Thus, the writ petitioner is not entitled for the relief, as such sought for in the present Writ Petition.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(S.M.S.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.)
22.03.2024
skr
Index : Yes
Speaking order
To
1. The Principal District Judge, Cuddalore District, District Court, Cuddalore – 607 001.
2. The Accountant General, Office of the Accountant General (Accounts & Entitlement), 361, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.
Page 7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.22043 of 2022
3. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Home (Courts V) Department, Secretariat, Fort St George, Chennai – 600 009.
4. The Registrar General, High Court, Madras, High Court Buildings, Chennai – 600 104.
Page 8 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.22043 of 2022 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
and K.RAJASEKAR, J.
skr W.P.No.22043 of 2022 22.03.2024 Page 9 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis