Facts
The petitioner worked as a Laboratory Assistant from 7 July 1981 until his retirement on 31 May 2017, having received Selection Grade, Special Grade and a stagnation increment during his service.
Source reference: p. 2The District Educational Officer forwarded a revised pension proposal, but the Principal Accountant General returned it, stating that the additional fitment table did not apply because the ordinary-grade pay band had not been revised.
Source reference: pp. 4–5The petitioner sought to quash that refusal and obtain pension benefits on the basis of the proposal.
Source reference: p. 1Issues
Whether the Principal Accountant General was correct in refusing to approve the Department’s pension proposal on the stated ground that the ordinary-grade pay band had not been revised.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 7; p. 5, para. 9Whether the Court should direct sanction of pension benefits or instead require the District Educational Officer to reconsider the matter.
Source reference: pp. 5–6, para. 10Law Applied
The judgment does not identify or apply any specific statute, regulation, or precedent as the basis for its decision.
Source reference: no citationIt directs the District Educational Officer to consider the petitioner’s fresh representation “in accordance with law”.
Source reference: p. 6, para. 10Authorities cited by the respondents are recorded in the judgment, but the Court does not rely on them in its reasoning.
Source reference: p. 4, paras. 5–6Reasoning
The Court noted the Accountant General’s stated reason for rejecting the proposal and the Department’s changed position, but did not determine whether the petitioner was substantively entitled to the claimed pay revision or pension benefits.
Source reference: pp. 4–5, paras. 7–10Instead, it set aside both the Accountant General’s order and the District Educational Officer’s recommendation, leaving the petitioner to submit a fresh representation for consideration by the District Educational Officer.
Source reference: p. 6, para. 10Holding
The writ petition was disposed of without a determination of the petitioner’s entitlement to the claimed pension benefits.
The impugned order and the District Educational Officer’s recommendation were set aside; the petitioner was permitted to make a fresh representation within two weeks, and the District Educational Officer was directed to act on it within four weeks thereafter.
Source reference: p. 6, paras. 10–11No costs were ordered.
Source reference: p. 6, para. 11Original Court PDF
P.ArockiasamyvsThe Principal Account Genera
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
