Revised pay fixation proposals must strictly comply with applicable Pay Rules and Government Orders.

The petitioner sought a direction to the Subordinate Judge, Ranipet, to forward a revised pension/pay-fixation proposal to the District Treasury Officer and the Accountant General for revision of pension, payment of arrears and allowances, and refund of amounts allegedly recovered from his salary towards 5% personal pay for the period from 07.10.1992 to 30.06.2013.

The petitioner relied on an earlier order in W.P. No. 1625 of 2023, dated 16.02.2024, by which the Court confirmed the revised pay fixation made in accordance with the applicable Pay Rules and Government Orders and directed refund of any amount recovered pursuant to recovery proceedings.

He submitted that the revised proposal had still not been forwarded for fixation of pay.

Whether the first respondent should be directed to forward the petitioner’s revised proposal for pay and pension fixation to the competent treasury and Accountant General authorities.

Whether the revised pay and pension fixation should be undertaken in accordance with the applicable Pay Rules and Government Orders, consistently with the earlier order of the Court.

The Court applied the principle that pay and pension fixation must be undertaken strictly in accordance with the applicable Pay Rules and Government Orders.

It also gave effect to the earlier judicial direction that the revised pay fixation made under those rules and Government Orders would continue and that any amount recovered pursuant to recovery proceedings was to be refunded.

The earlier order had confirmed the revised pay fixation and protected the petitioner against recovery of excess salary, subject to refund of amounts already recovered.

Since the petitioner asserted that the revised proposal had not yet been submitted for fixation, the Court directed that the proposal be processed in accordance with the governing Pay Rules and Government Orders.

The Court did not independently determine the precise pension amount or adjudicate the petitioner’s monetary claims; instead, it required the competent authorities to complete the proposal and fixation process lawfully.

The petition was disposed of without costs.

The Court did not issue a separate quantified direction regarding pension arrears or refund in this proceeding, but the earlier order concerning continuation of revised pay fixation and refund of recovered amounts remained relevant.