Facts
The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Bailiff in 1965 and retired as a Special Grade Process Server on January 31, 2003.
Source reference: p. 2After receiving a pension for over 23 years, the petitioner submitted a representation for pay revision to the scale of 1400-2600, which was forwarded by the District Munsif, Tiruvarur, to the Accountant General (AG) on May 12, 2023.
Source reference: p. 2The AG rejected the proposal on June 13, 2023, stating that the requested scale did not exist for the petitioner’s post under the relevant Government Orders and that the proposal was not sent through the proper administrative channel.
Source reference: p. 2-3Issues
1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s claim for pay revision by the Accountant General was legally sustainable under the applicable Government Orders.
Source reference: p. 2-32. Whether a proposal for pay revision for a retired judicial staff member can be validly processed without being routed through the Registrar General of the High Court.
Source reference: p. 3Law Applied
The Court applied the pay scale specifications provided in G.O.No. 666 and G.O.No. 304, which dictate the time scales for Junior Bailiffs (800-1150), Selection Grade (950-1500), and Special Grade (975-1660).
Source reference: p. 2-3It further applied the administrative principle that pay revision proposals for retired judicial employees must be verified and forwarded by the proper channel, specifically the Registrar General of the High Court, rather than directly by a District Munsif.
Source reference: p. 3Reasoning
The Court observed that the petitioner sought a pay scale (1400-2600) that was not provided for in Annexure 1 of G.O. 304 for any ordinary grade time scale corresponding to his position.
Source reference: p. 3Consequently, the AG’s rejection was deemed correct as the claim lacked a basis in existing Government Orders.
Source reference: p. 3Furthermore, the Court noted a procedural lapse: the District Munsif lacked the authority to bypass the Registrar General when submitting pay revision proposals to the AG.
Source reference: p. 3The Court emphasized that the correctness of such claims must be verified by the Registrar General of the High Court of Madras before being forwarded for financial processing.
Source reference: p. 3Holding
The Court found no infirmity in the Accountant General’s order and dismissed the challenge against the rejection.
The Court granted the petitioner liberty to approach the competent authority to have his grievances verified by the Registrar General, High Court of Madras.
Source reference: p. 3The Writ Petition was disposed of with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Source reference: p. 3, 5Original Court PDF
J.SAMBANDAMvsTHE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in