IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 16-07-2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.2329 of 2007 (O.A.No.1153 of 2001) Tamil Nadu Government Agricultural Graduates Association, rep. by its Secretary Mr.T.Stanli ..Petitioner Versus 1.The Joint Secretary to Government, Finance (PC) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai. 2.The Director of Agriculture, Chepauk, Chennai. ..Respondents Prayer: Original Application No.1153 of 2001 filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, on abolition, transferred to the file of this Court and renumbered as Writ Petition No.2329 of 2007, seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the 1st respondent, dated 22.7.1999, issued in the Ref.No.Govt.Lr.No.41994/PC/99-1 and quash the same in so far as it relates to denying two increments for higher qualification to the Agriculture officers who were appointed between 1.1.1996 to 31.3.1998 and further direct the respondents to pay two increments to the Agriculture officers, who were appointed between 1.1.1996 to 31.3.1998 for higher qualification. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Muthukannu For Respondents : Ms.S.Anitha Government Advocate O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Association, challenging the impugned letter, dated 22.7.1999, issued by the first respondent, addressed to the Directorate of Sead Certification, Coimbatore, clarifying certain points, which had been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ raised, with regard to grant of advance increments, surrender of earned leave and for revision of pay scales for certain categories of employees and officers at the Department of Agriculture. 3. It has been stated that the members of the petitioner Association are working as Agriculture Officers. The Agriculture officers, who were appointed, with higher educational qualifications, between 1.1.1996 and 31.3.1998, were given two increments for their higher qualifications and their pay was fixed at Rs.6,900 in the scale of Rs.6500-200-11000. However, by the impugned letter of the first respondent, dated 22.7.1999, it has been clarified that they are not eligible for the two increments granted to them, for their higher qualifications, in their revised scale. Consequently, the pay of the Agriculture Officers, who were appointed, between 1.1.1996 and 31.3.1998, possessing higher qualifications, will not be given two increments for such higher qualifications and their pay would be fixed at the minimum. The clarifications issued by the first respondent were communicated to the individual members of the petitioner Association, by the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 10.10.2000. Based on the cancellation of the two increments already granted to the members of the petitioner Association, recovery orders had been issued to them. 4. It has been further stated that as per G.O.Ms.No.570, Agriculture (AA.I) Department, dated 1.4.1978, an Agriculture Officer is eligible for two increments for acquiring higher qualifications. However, by way of an executive instruction, the benefits have been denied. Further, in G.O.Ms.No.162, Finance Department, dated 13.4.1998, instructions have been issued, with regard to fixation of pay in the normal course. However, the said Government order does not deal with the grant of increments or incentives, for acquiring higher qualifications. The monetary benefits, under the sixth pay commission, had been introduced, with effect from 1.1.1996. For those who had joined the service, between 1.1.1996 and 31.3.1998, their pay had been revised, with effect from 1.1.1996, as per the sixth pay commission. As such, denying the increments for higher qualifications, obtained in the revised scale, is arbitrary and unreasonable. 5. No reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 6. However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the Association has no locus standi to file the present writ petition, as the members of the petitioner Association cannot be said to be aggrieved, at this stage. The impugned letter of the first respondent has only clarified certain points raised, with regard to the grant of advance increments, surrender of earned leave by the employees at the time of their retirement and with regard to the issue as to whether the employees https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ who have reached the maximum time of scale of pay, on 1.1.1995, in the existing scale of pay are entitled for increment and whether the office assistants awarded selection grade after 1.1.1996, are entitled for revised scale of pay. It may be open to the members of the petitioner Association to challenge the proceedings issued to them, based on such clarifications. However, it would not be appropriate for them to challenge the letter of the first respondent, dated 22.7.1999, which is impugned in the present writ petition. 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, the contentions raised on behalf of the respondents are sustainable. The petitioner Association has not been in a position to show as to how the members have been affected by the impugned letter, dated 22.7.1999. It is seen that the impugned letter of the first respondent, dated 22.7.1999, has been issued only by way of clarification, clarifying certain issues raised, with regard to the payment of increments and fixation of pay scales of certain employees. It cannot be said that the members of the petitioner Association are aggrieved by the impugned letter of the first respondent, dated 22.7.1999, at this stage. However, it would be open to the individual members of the petitioner Association to challenge the proceedings, if any, issued by the respondents, affecting their service conditions, including the payment of increments, fixation of revised pay scales and recovery of payments, already made to them. In such circumstances, the writ petition stands dismissed, with the above observations. No costs. sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar csh To 1. The Joint Secretary to Government, Finance (PC) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai. 2. The Director of Agriculture, Chepauk, Chennai. + 1 c.c. to Mr. R. Muthukannu, Advocate. S.R.No.31872. + 1 c.c. to The Government Pleader. S.R.No.32111. Writ Petition No.2329 of 2007 MDR (CO) GSK 18.08.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/