S. RATHINAM Vs. THE DIRECTOR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the writ petition is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records pertaining to the order of the 4th respondent in Na.Ka.No.105/10 dated 12.11.2010 and quash the same, and direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to grant 6th Pay Commission benefits in the pension to the petitioner within the time to be fixed by this Court.

(2.) The petitioner was working as Art Teacher and he has been made permanent on 01.06.1981. Subsequently, he was granted Selection Grade in the year 1991. On attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service on 31.05.1997 and he is also drawing pension. While so, the 6th Pay Commission recommendations have been implemented from 01.01.2006 and accordingly, his pension benefits had to be revised by the respondents and revised pensionary benefits in accordance with the 6th Pay Commission has to be paid to be petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner had approached the respondents to revise his pension in accordance with 6th Pay Commission recommendations and accordingly pay pensionary benefits to the petitioner. In response to the said request, the 4th respondent has passed the present impugned order dated 12.11.2010, whereby the 4th respondent has stated that during the service of the petitioner, he was conferred Selection Grade and the date on which such conferment made was found to be wrong subsequently. Therefore, based on conferment of Selection Grade salary has been paid to the petitioner and unless the said amount paid to the petitioner is recovered from him, further benefit of extending the pensionary benefits in accordance with the 6th Pay Commission recommendations cannot be paid. Therefore, the fourth respondent has stated in the impugned order that unless the said excess amount having been paid to the petitioner wrongly by taking into account Selection Grade conferred on him is paid back by the petitioner to the respondents, the request of the petitioner, seeking the pensionary benefits by revising his pay in accordance with the 6th Pay Commission recommendations cannot be considered and therefore the same was rejected. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come out with the present writ petition.

(3.) Heard both sides.