Courts cannot interfere with expert pay fixation absent palpable error or arbitrariness.

The petitioner sought a mandamus directing the respondents to consider his representation dated 3 May 2021 for pay refixation under an additional fitment table, payment of pay and surrender-leave-salary arrears, and submission of a revised pension proposal.

He also sought compensation, interest, and departmental proceedings.

He claimed unequal treatment compared with a colleague, Navaneetha Krishnan, whose pay he said had been revised under the additional fitment table.

The State opposed the claim, submitting that pay revision should be based on basic pay, not selection-grade pay, and relied on a clarification dated 21 March 2022.

The Madras High Court dismissed the petition.

1. Whether the petitioner established an entitlement under the applicable Government instructions to have his pay revised using the additional fitment table, including by comparison with Navaneetha Krishnan.

2. Whether the Court should issue a mandamus directing consideration of the petitioner’s representation and grant the related monetary and other reliefs.

In exercising judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court will not ordinarily interfere with pay fixation, which falls within the domain of competent authorities and experts, unless there is a palpable or manifest error or an apparent arbitrary exercise of power.

The Government clarification dated 21 March 2022 stated that pay revision was to be based on basic pay, rather than selection-grade pay.

The judgment identifies no judicial precedent as the basis for its decision.

The petitioner’s claim rested principally on comparison with Navaneetha Krishnan and the additional fitment table, but the Court found that he had not established his own entitlement under the relevant Government instructions.

It accepted the respondents’ position that the amount relied on by the petitioner was selection-grade pay and that, under the Government’s clarification, revision had to be calculated on basic pay.

The Court further found no palpable error or apparent arbitrariness in the competent authority’s pay fixation that would justify judicial intervention or a mandamus.

The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.