AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents.
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 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.
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.
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.
No reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents.
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 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.
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.