Facts
The petitioner joined the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service on September 2, 1985, and retired as a Senior Bailiff on February 28, 2013
Source reference: p. 2Six years after retirement, in 2019, he submitted a representation seeking a pay revision to a Grade Pay of Rs. 4,200/-, relying on a 2017 High Court order
Source reference: p. 2, 3The Principal Accountant General (Respondent No. 2) rejected this on February 20, 2020, stating that Grade Pay for Selection Grade Senior Bailiff is restricted to the first-level promotional post (Assistant), which is Rs. 2,800/-
Source reference: p. 2The petitioner challenged this rejection in 2025
Source reference: p. 1, 3Issues
1. Whether the Writ Petition is barred by the doctrine of laches due to the delay in approaching the Court
Source reference: p. 32. Whether a Selection Grade employee is entitled to a Grade Pay higher than that of the first-level promotional post
Source reference: p. 3-4Law Applied
The Court applied the doctrine of laches regarding the delay in filing the petition
Source reference: p. 3Substantively, it relied on Government Letter No. 49470/PC/90-I dated September 14, 1990, and Para 4 (ii) of Government Letter No. 63305/PC/10-I dated November 18, 2010
Source reference: p. 2These rules establish that Selection Grade/Special Grade scales of pay are restricted to the pay levels of the first and second-level promotional posts, respectively
Source reference: p. 3, 4The Court further applied the precedent set by the Division Bench in Rev.A.Writ (MD) No. 108 of 2025, which modified earlier rulings to ensure Selection Grade pay does not exceed promotional post pay
Source reference: p. 3, 4Reasoning
The Court first noted a significant delay of five years in challenging the 2020 order and a six-year delay in the initial representation after retirement, making the petition liable for rejection on the grounds of laches
Source reference: p. 2, 3On the merits, the Court found the issue was "no more res integra" due to the Division Bench’s decision in the review application involving the Registrar General
Source reference: p. 3The Court reasoned that since the post of Assistant is the first-level promotion for a Senior Bailiff, the petitioner's Selection Grade pay must be restricted to the Grade Pay of an Assistant (Rs. 2,800/-)
Source reference: p. 2, 4The Court observed that the previous order relied upon by the petitioner had been specifically modified in review to prevent employees from receiving pay higher than their promotional counterparts
Source reference: p. 4Holding
The Court dismissed the Writ Petition
It held that the petitioner is ineligible to claim a Grade Pay of Rs. 4,200/- as it exceeds the pay of the promotional post of Assistant
Source reference: p. 4The Court affirmed that the impugned order by the Accountant General was in consonance with Pay Commission recommendations and clarificatory government letters
Source reference: p. 4, 5No costs were awarded
Source reference: p. 5Original Court PDF
E.PRABAKARANvsTHE REGISTARAR GENERAL
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in