Higher-start pay under G.O.Ms.No.321 depends on appointment before the cutoff date, not selection.

The respondents, who possessed degree qualifications, were appointed as Junior Assistants by the concerned District Educational Officer through proceedings dated 25.04.2013.

They claimed the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.321, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 02.07.1998, which granted a higher starting pay of two stages above the minimum of the applicable pay scale to Graduate Junior Assistants, Typists and Record Clerks.

The Government subsequently dispensed with this benefit through G.O.Ms.No.241, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 22.07.2013, with effect from 01.04.2013.

The respondents contended that their selection had taken place before 01.04.2013 and that the delay in issuing their appointment orders was administrative.

The Single Judge allowed their writ petition in W.P. No.13226 of 2020. The State challenged that order by filing the present intra-court appeal.

1. Whether the respondents’ selection before 01.04.2013, despite their appointment being issued on 25.04.2013, entitled them to the higher-starting-pay benefit under G.O.Ms.No.321 dated 02.07.1998.

2. Whether the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.321 could be claimed after its dispensation under G.O.Ms.No.241 dated 22.07.2013, which prescribed 01.04.2013 as the relevant cut-off date.

3. Whether the benefit granted in isolated cases could be relied upon as a precedent to claim similar treatment.

The Court applied G.O.Ms.No.321, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 02.07.1998, under which Graduate Junior Assistants, Typists and Record Clerks were entitled to a higher starting pay fixed at two stages above the minimum of the applicable pay scale, provided they possessed the requisite degree qualification at the time of appointment.

It further applied G.O.Ms.No.241, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 22.07.2013, which dispensed with the higher-starting-pay benefit with effect from 01.04.2013, while protecting cases in which the benefit had already been granted between 01.04.2013 and the date of that order from recovery.

The Court held that selection by itself confers no right to Government service or consequential pay fixation; the relevant event is appointment to Government service.

It also held that an erroneous benefit granted in isolated cases cannot constitute a precedent for perpetuating the same error.

The respondents were appointed only on 25.04.2013, after the operative cut-off date of 01.04.2013.

Although their selection may have occurred earlier, selection did not confer a vested right to appointment, pay fixation or the higher-starting-pay benefit.

Since G.O.Ms.No.321 regulated pay applicable to persons appointed to Government service, the entitlement had to be assessed by reference to the date of appointment rather than the date of selection.

Consequently, the respondents’ post-cut-off appointments placed them outside the scope of the discontinued benefit.

The Court further rejected reliance on the relief allegedly granted to two other candidates, observing that isolated or erroneous extensions of the benefit could not override the Government’s policy or create an enforceable precedent.

The writ order dated 21.12.2024 in W.P. No.13226 of 2020 was set aside, the writ appeal was allowed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed without costs.