High Court cannot issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Government to ratify a pay fixation.

The petitioner, M. Arul, served as a Sheristadar and retired from service on 31.05.2022.

During his tenure, his pay was stepped up to be on par with his junior following proceedings by the Registrar General of the Madras High Court and subsequent orders by the Principal District Judges of Vellore and Krishnagiri.

The petitioner filed a Writ of Mandamus seeking a direction to the Government of Tamil Nadu (Respondent No. 1) to ratify this re-fixation of pay and to award compensation and 18% interest for the delay in ratification.

During the proceedings, the Court suo motu impleaded the Principal Accountant General (A & E) as the fifth respondent.

1. Whether the High Court, in the exercise of its power of judicial review under Article 226, can issue a Writ of Mandamus to compel the Government to ratify a specific pay fixation.

The court applied the principles of Judicial Review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, noting that discretionary administrative functions, such as pay ratification, must follow prescribed statutory procedures.

It emphasized that pay fixation and stepping up of pay are governed by specific Government Orders (notably G.O.Ms.No.20, P & AR Department, dated 20.01.1995) and require the verification and approval of the Principal Accountant General of Tamil Nadu to ensure correctness.

The Court reasoned that the act of ratifying a pay fixation is a procedural administrative process that involves verifying the correctness of the "stepping up" against prevailing Government Orders.

The Court held that it cannot bypass these established administrative procedures by issuing a direct mandate to ratify, as such decisions require technical scrutiny by the competent authorities and the Principal Accountant General.

Exercise of judicial review does not extend to performing the executive's role in determining the validity of a financial fixation before the competent authority has concluded its assessment.

The petitioner was granted the liberty to approach the competent authority for necessary action; the Writ Petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.