Contractual employees of the Administrator General are not entitled to government-scale pay commissions or pensionary benefits.

The petitioner was appointed as an Estate Clerk by the Administrator General and Official Trustee (AG&OT) of Tamil Nadu on March 17, 1989, on a temporary, consolidated pay basis to collect rent for properties belonging to the MM Charities Trust

He retired on May 31, 2018, after nearly 30 years of service

Following his retirement, he filed a writ petition seeking terminal benefits, including Death Cum Retirement Gratuity and pensionary benefits, calculated as per the VIII Pay Commission revisions applicable to government servants

The respondent argued that the petitioner was not a government servant and that a sum of Rs. 4,55,875/- had been deducted from his calculated terminal benefits of Rs. 5,19,013/- due to misappropriation of funds discovered during disciplinary proceedings

1. Whether a temporary clerk engaged by the AG&OT on a consolidated pay basis is entitled to terminal benefits and pay scales on par with Government of Tamil Nadu servants

2. Whether the Court can exercise judicial review to extend government pay benefits in the absence of specific service conditions or agreements

The Court applied the principle that service benefits, specifically Pay Commission revisions, are governed by the specific terms of appointment and service conditions

It held that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Government Pay Commission revisions do not automatically apply to contractual or temporary staff engaged by statutory trustees for private trust management unless specifically adopted or mandated by a service agreement

Furthermore, the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution does not extend to creating new financial obligations or service benefits where no legal right or agreement exists

The Court observed that the petitioner’s appointment order explicitly stated his role was temporary and on a consolidated salary

Although he received certain allowances during his long tenure, the Court found no evidence that the AG&OT had ever adopted the Government Pay Commission revisions for such staff

The Court reasoned that since the petitioner was not a government servant and was specifically engaged to manage Trust properties, he could not claim parity with government employees

Additionally, the Court noted that the respondent had already settled the balance of the petitioner's terminal benefits after legally deducting amounts lost due to misappropriation

Under the exercise of judicial review, the Court determined it lacked the authority to compel the respondent to pay benefits that were neither contractually agreed upon nor legally mandated

The Court affirmed that the respondent had already processed and settled the applicable terminal benefits after adjusting for misappropriated funds. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded