IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.08.2009 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.No.9518 of 2007 in O.A.No.651 of 2002 P.Cristal Gnanadoss ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By the Commissioner and Secretary to Government Forest Department Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Conservator of Forests Thirunelveli – N.G.O.Colony, Palayankottai. 3.The District Forest Officer Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil. ... Respondents PRAYER: This Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No.651 of 2002 from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to call for the records and set aside the order dated 09.10.2001 in proceedings Na.Ka.No.4569/2001/P1 passed by the District Forest Officer, Kanyakumari and consequently to restore the order dated 29.11.1998 order passed by the Forest Range Officer, Srivilliputhur, granting personal pay on promotion to the applicant with effect from 01.09.1998. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Justin For Respondents : Mr.S.N.Kribanandan Special Government Pleader (Forests) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R The Original Application in O.A.No.651 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) is now writ petition in W.P.No.9518 of 2007 before this Court. 2.Heard the submissions made by Mr.G.Justin, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.N.Kribanandan, learned Special Government Pleader (Forests) the respondents. 3.The petitioner entered service of the respondents as Forest Watcher on 02.07.1984. He was promoted as Forest Guard on 16.09.1993. While he was working as a Forest Guard, he was granted personal pay of 5% of basic pay as per G.O.Ms.No.664, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 24.08.1992. Accordingly, his pay was fixed by the District Forest Officer, the third respondent herein, vide proceedings dated 19.04.1993 The petitioner was drawing Rs.41/- as personal pay with effect from 01.08.1992 as per G.O.Ms.No.664 referred to above. 4.Later, by an order dated 21.11.1998, the personal pay of the petitioner was enhanced to Rs.162/- with effect from 01.09.1998, based on G.O.Ms.No.497, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 15.09.1998. 5.While so, the impugned order dated 09.10.2001 was passed by the third respondent, cancelling the benefit of personal pay granted to the petitioner. 6.The impugned order, while cancelling the special pay granted to the petitioner, states that the scale of pay of Forest Guard was Rs.825-15-900-20-1200 and that the said scale of pay is not covered by the very first G.O.Ms.No.664, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 24.08.1992. Hence, the very fixation is bad and therefore, further enhancement could not arise when there was a revision in the scale. 7.According to the learned Special Government Pleader, the categories of staff in the following scales of pay alone are entitled to personal pay. "(i) All categories of staff in the pre revised scales of pay at Rs.475 – 775 moving over to the revised scale of pay of Rs.775 – 1080. (ii) All categories of staff in the pre revised scale of pay of Rs.610 – 1075 moving over to the revised scale of pay of Rs.950 – 1500 or Rs.975 – 1660. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (iii) All categories of staff in the pre revised scale of pay of Rs.705 – 1230 moving over to the revised scale of pay of Rs.1200-2040 and (iv) All categories of staff in the pre revised scale of pay of Rs.905 – 1545 moving over to the revised scale of pay of Rs.1600 – 2660." 8.Citing the aforesaid prescription of scale of pay, the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents submits that while the categories of staff receiving Rs.775 – 1080 and the categories of staff receiving Rs.950 – 1500 are entitled to special pay, the petitioner, who received Rs.825-1200 scale is not entitled to special pay. 9.The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when the Forest Watcher receiving Rs.775 – 1080 is given the personal pay and the person holding higher post than the Forest Guard who are in receipt of Rs.950-1500 are given the personal pay, the respondents are not justified in depriving personal pay to the categories who are receiving scale of pay in between the scales of pay. The learned counsel also submits that the very purpose of G.O.Ms.No.664 is defeated if such an interpretation is placed on the said Government Order, as the very purpose of the Government Order was to grant personal pay while declining to revise further the scales of pay. 10.The learned counsel for the petitioner cites a decision of this Court in W.P.Nos.28505 and 28611 of 2006 dated 26.06.2008, wherein, on an identical situation, this Court set aside the impugned order, by cancelling the earlier order, granting the special pay by following the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 10.03.2006 made in W.P.Nos.20156 and 13143 of 2000. Paragraph No.12 of the said Division Bench judgment was extracted in the judgment dated 26.06.2008 and the same is reproduced here-under: "12.From a reading of the counter affidavit, the G.O. and the letter dated 3.8.1999 which is impugned, one factor is very clear. The respondents have not taken into consideration that paragraph 4 of the G.O. which clearly makes 5% personal pay applicable to all pay scales specified therein and it includes the grades lower and higher to that of the petitioners. From the chart set out in paragraph 8 above, the anomaly is further amplified and explained. Head Clerk of District Court, Sheristadar of Sub-Court and Superintendent in the scale of pay of Rs.905-1545, having the benefit of revised scale of pay of Rs.1600- 2660, are getting the benefit of 5% personal pay on basic pay, whereas, Head Clerk, Deputy Nazir of Munsif https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Court, Copyist, Superintendent, Record Keeper, Head Clerk of Sub-Court in the scale of pay of Rs.780-1385 and revised scale of pay of Rs.1400-2600, are denied the benefit of 5% personal pay. There is no reason why the petitioners' category of Head Clerk and Deputy Nazir of Munsif Court or Head Clerk of Sub-Court should be denied the benefit of 5% personal pay when compared with that of Head Clerk of District Court and Sheristadar of Sub-Court. It has been stated that several scales of pay have been omitted including the scale of pay of Rs.1600-2660. On going through the G.O., the emphasis is that it will not apply to any promotion beyond the scale of pay of Rs.1600-2660. Therefore, if the petitioners also fall in any one of the categories of the various scales of pay, then they will be entitled to claim the benefit of the G.O. Further, in the impugned order, it is stated that in terms of Government Letter No.97374/PC/99, Finance, 25.3.1999, 5% personal pay as on 1.9.1998 is not applicable to the categories such as Head Clerk, Deputy Nazir, District Munsif Court, Record Keeper and Translator, District Court and Head Clerk of Sub-Court on the ground that they moved to the level of Superintendents only from the scale of pay of Rs.780- 1,385 to Rs.1,600-2,600. However, there is no reason given why Head Clerks of District Courts, Sheristadars of Sub-Court and Superintendents falling under Sl.No.IV of the chart extracted in paragraph 9 above, in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.905-1,545 and the revised scale of Rs.1,600-2,660 were given the benefit of 5% personal pay. Viewed from this angle also, it is clear that the omission if at all can be only by oversight. In any event, merely stating in the counter affidavit and the impugned letter that the petitioners have been consciously omitted, does not appear to reason, in view of the obvious anomaly that is observed by this omission. Such a view taken by the respondents will clearly amount to discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The contention of the first respondent shows total non- application of mind and non-consideration of the G.O. in its proper perspective. The impugned letter obviously has been passed on a misconception and misreading of the said G.O." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 11.In view of same and as the issue involved in the present case is fully covered by the said decision, the impugned order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar TK To 1.The Commissioner and Secretary to Government Forest Department Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Conservator of Forests Thirunelveli – N.G.O.Colony, Palayankottai. 3.The District Forest Officer Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil. 4. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. + 1 CC to Mr.G.Justin,Advocate,SR.41260 + 1 CC to Government Pleader,SR.40929 W.P.No.9518 of 2007 NSM(CO) EM/2.9.09 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/