IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 25.8.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.24286 OF 2006 D. Sankara Narayan ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Secretary to Government Agricultural Department Fort St. George Chennai – 9. 2. The Director of Agriculture (Formerly Commissioner) Agricultural Department Chepauk, Chennai – 5. 3. The Deputy Director of Agriculture Tuticorin. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the Government Letter No.6876/AD.1/05-05, dated 27.2.2006 issued by the Secretary to Government, Agriculture Department, Fort St. George, Chennai, the first respondent herein quash the same and direct the respondents herein to advance the Selection Grade in the post of Assistant Director of Agriculture from 25.6.1992, the day the petitioner came to be promoted as per G.O.Ms.No.210, P&AR Department, dated 11.3.1987 and disburse arrears and all monetary benefits and consequential service benefits within a short date that may be fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mrs. G. Sridevi For Respondents : Mr. R. Murali, Govt. Advocate O R D E R The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 27.2.2006 declining the request of the petitioner to give Selection Grade from 25.6.1992. The said request was made by the petitioner on 16.10.2002, which was also forwarded by the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Tuticorin to the Director of Agriculture, Chennai-5 on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 13.10.2002. The petitioner was continuously making representation to the Director of Agriculture and last of the said representation was submitted on 15.9.2005. The impugned order was passed by the Government on 27.2.2006 rejecting the request by stating that due to the pendency of a charge and the said charge having been disposed of after retirement of the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled to get Selection Grade pay fixed from 25.6.1992. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was having unblemished record of service on the date of considering his claim for the award of Selection Grade. The first charge memo issued was under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules on 6.9.1997, for which punishment was imposed by stopping the increment for three months without cumulative effect by order dated 23.6.1998 and the said order was also confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Subsequently, in the year 1998, another charge memo was framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules and cut in pension was imposed in July, 2004. The petitioner reached the age of superannuation in the year 2001. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.68, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.M) Department, dated 23.1.1986 and G.O.Ms.No.210, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.S) Department, dated 11.3.1987, the petitioner is entitled to get his Selection Grade pay from 25.6.1992 i.e. on completion of 10 years of service, which was unblemished. Even though he was promoted to the post of Assistant Director of Agriculture, his salary in the said post was lower than the Selection Grade pay in the lower cadre. 4. In answer to the said submission, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was facing a charge under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules as on 6.9.1997 and the punishment was also imposed on 23.6.1998 and he was also facing a charge under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules from 1998 till his retirement in the year 20901 and therefore, the Department was justified in declining the request of the petitioner seeking Selection Grade pay fom 25.6.1992. The Government Order regarding grant of Selection Grade is issued in G.O.Ms.No.68, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.M) Department, dated 23.1.1986. In paragraph-3 of the said Government Order, it is stated that for advancement to Selection Grade/Special Grades, all employees, who have put in 10/20 years of satisfactory service and who satisfy all the qualifications prescribed under the Special Rules/Adhoc Rules prescribed for promotion to the higher post shall be eligible. Subsequently, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.210, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.S) Department, dated 11.3.1987 and stated that even if one is given promotion and his pay https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is less than the Selection Grade pay in the lower grade, the Selection Grade pay shall be given to him by counting his lower cadre services to prevent monetary loss. The said G.O., was given effect from 1.10.1984 and it reads as follows:- " SELECTION/SPECIAL GRADE" GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU ABSTRACT Public Services-Advancement of Selection Grade/Special Grade in Various service-Recommendation of the One Man Committee - Accepted – Orders – Issued. _________________________________________________ (G.O.Ms.No.210, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.S), 11th March, 1987) Read: G.O.Ms.No.68, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.M) Department, dated 23rd January, 1986. ORDER: The Government in their orders read above have issued guidelines for advancement to Selection Grade, Special Grade in various categories, based on the recommendations of the Fourth Tamil Nadu Pay Commission. The One Man Committee has now recommended as follows:- " Services in the Selection Grade of the lower post may also be counted for the Selection Grade in the promoted post provided that the Selection Grade scale of the lower post is identified to the ordinary grade of the higher post and that this concession may be allowed only at the first, promotion level. This will mainly result in some pensionary benefits to these categories. In the case of posts with different grades, persons with 10 years or more of service may be advanced to Grade I and those with 20 years or more may be advanced to Selection Grade of Grade I" 2. The Government after careful examination accept the recommendation of the One Man Committee and direct that the service i.e. the Selection Grade of the lower post shall be counted for the Selection Grade in the promoted post provided that the Selection Grade scale of the lower post is identical to the ordinary grade of the higher post, and that the concession be allowed only at the first promotion level. Government also direct that in the case of posts with different grades one who has put in 10 years or more of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ service in the lower post (e.g. Grade II) shall be advanced to the next higher post (i.e. Grade I) under the scheme of Flexible Complementing and one with a service of 20 years or more be advanced to Selection Grade of the higher post (i.e. Grade I) wherever it has already been provided. 3. These orders shall take notional effect from 1st October, 1984 for the purpose of fixation of pay with monetary benefit from 1st April, 1986. (BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR)" 5. From a perusal of the said Government Order, it is evident that the petitioner is eligible to get Selection Grade pay in the promotional post counting the earlier service from 25.6.1992, even though he was given promotion as his salary paid was lower than the Selection Grade pay in the lower cadre. The only reason stated in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner's service was not satisfactory on the date of completion of 10 years of service on 25.6.1992. The petitioner's service was satisfactory as stated supra. As no charge was pending and only on 6.9.1997, for the first time, charge memo under Rules 17(a) was issued and 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules was issued in the year 1998 and hence the impugned order passed by the first respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner claiming Selection Grade pay cannot be sustained and the said order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the first respondent to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the Government Orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.68, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.M) Department, dated 23.1.1986 and G.O.Ms.No.210, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.S) Department, dated 11.3.1987 and pass fresh orders, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, as no charge was pending against the petitioner as on 25.6.1992. The writ petition is disposed of with above direction. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar kb https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Secretary to Government Agricultural Department Fort St. George Chennai – 9. 2. The Director of Agriculture (Formerly Commissioner) Agricultural Department Chepauk, Chennai – 5. 3. The Deputy Director of Agriculture Tuticorin. 1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr.No.63126 1 cc to M/s.G.Sridevi, Advocate, Sr.No.62816 W.P.No.24286 of 2006 AKR {CO} TP/8.9.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/