(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in proceeding No.P10/1/11025037/ADK dated 09.04.2019 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to Re-fix the petitioner scale of pay as per G.O.M.S.No.23 Finance Department dated 12.01.2011 and the consequent Letter No.8764/CMPC/2012-01 by adding a sum of Rs.250/- personal pay (750-500 = 250) for the period from 01.01.2011 to 25.07.2013 in the scale of pay of the petitioner and to Re-fix the pension and to pay the same with arrears.)

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1, 3 and 4 and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and perused the record.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he was initially appointed as B.T.Assistant on 09.10.1986 and was granted selection grade in B.T.Assistant on 09.01.1996; that thereafter, he was promoted as High School Headmaster on 29.10.2005. It is the further case of the petitioner that he was awarded selection grade in the post of High School Headmaster on 09.10.2006 by counting service of 10 years rendered in the post of B.T.Assistant and thereafter, he was promoted as District Educational Officer on 26.07.2013 and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2016.

3. The petitioner contended that as per revised Scale pay pursuant to 6th Pay Commission recommendations which were made under Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.234 Finance Department dated 01.06.2009, his pay was fixed in the scale of 9300-34800 with a Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/- from 01.01.2006; that thereafter as per G.O.Ms.No.58 dated 25.02.2011 his pay has been revised with effect from 01.01.2006 in the scale pay of Rs.9300- 34800 with Grade pay of Rs.4800/- (notionally effected from 01.01.2006 with monetary benefits from 01.01.2011); that the Government thereafter passed another order vide G.O.Ms.No.23 dated 12.01.2011 granting personal pay of Rs.750/- per month to the Secondary Grade Teacher and High School Headmaster from 01.01.2011 who were drawing pay in ordinary scale of pay; and that the Government issued clarification to G.O.Ms.No.234 and G.O.Ms.No.23 vide letter dated 18.04.2012 stating that those who are working as High School Headmaster and working in the ordinary grade pay given personal pay of Rs.750/- instead of Rs.500/- by giving monetary effect from 01.01.2011, the said pay of Rs.750/- will be taken into account along with Annual Increment, Dearness Allowance as well, for pensionary benefits; and that thereafter, further clarification was issued by the Director of School Education/3rd respondent that those who were granted Selection Grade after from 01.01.2006 without any change in grade pay would be entitled for personal pay of Rs.750/- w.e.f. 01.01.2011.

4. The petitioner contended that since, the Government had granted personal pay of Rs.750/- to Secondary Grade Teachers and those Teachers working in identical scale of pay and also to the Headmasters of High School, as per G.O.Ms.No.23 followed by clarification issued by the Government under the cover of letter dated 18.04.2012 with regard to admissibility of personal pay for Headmaster of High School with monetary benefits from 01.01.2011, he is entitled for personal pay of Rs.750/- in the post of High School Headmaster w.e.f. 01.01.2011; that for the said reason, he had sent a representation dated 07.12.2018 through proper channel for revision of pension as per G.O.Ms.No.23; and that the same was forwarded to the second respondent for the revised pension proposal by adding difference of pay of Rs.250/- (Rs.750/- – Rs.500/-) which was not added in the original pension as per G.O.Ms.No.23.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner, that the second respondent instead of revising the pension by adding the difference of personal pay of Rs.250/- had returned the proposal sent by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 09.04.2019 on the ground that he is not entitled for personal pay of Rs.250/- (difference amount) on the ground that he was awarded selection grade on 09.10.2006. Aggrieved by the aforesaid proceedings of the second respondent, the present writ petition is filed seeking to quash the said proceedings and to direct the respondents to refix the scale of pay as per G.O.Ms.No.23 by adding the difference personal pay of Rs.250/- for the period from 01.01.2011 to 25.07.2013 in the scale of pay of the petitioner and refix his pension and to pay arrears of pension.

6. Separate counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents 2 and 3.

7. The second respondent by the counter affidavit contended that the personal pay of Rs.750/- per month can be allowed in respect of the ordinary grade High School Headmaster w.e.f. 01.01.2011, and these ordinary grade pay High School Headmaster when moving to Selection/Special grade after 01.01.2011 can only retain the personal pay granted under G.O.Ms.No.23.

8. The second respondent by the counter affidavit further contended that as per G.O.Ms.No.23, the Government had sanctioned personal pay of Rs.750/- per month notionally w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and monetary benefits w.e.f. 01.01.2011 in respect of selection and special grade High School Headmaster and Rs.500/- p.m as Special allowance in respect of selection and Special grade High School Headmaster; that as the petitioner was moved to selection grade High School Headmaster on 09.10.2006 and was not in ordinary grade as on 01.01.2011 he is not eligible for Rs.750/- personal pay w.e.f 01.01.2011 as per G.O.Ms.23.

9. The second respondent by the counter affidavit also contended that Rs.500/- personal pay was sanctioned to the petitioner w.e.f. 29.12.2005 in the pre-revised pay scale on the date of his promotion to the High School Headmaster as per G.O.No.720 dated 17.12.1998 which was taken into account at the time of fixation of pay as on 01.01.2006 in the revised scale of pay granted as per recommendation of pay commission under G.O.234 dated 01.06.2009.

10. Contending as above, the second respondent seeks for dismissal of the writ petition against the 2nd respondent.

11. The 3rd respondent by his counter affidavit mainly contended that the petitioner was promoted as High School Headmaster on 29.05.2005 and was subsequently awarded selection grade in the said post on 09.10.2006 by counting services of 10 years rendered in the post of B.T.Assistant and that he was further promoted as District Educational Officer on 26.07.2013.

12. The respondents by the counter affidavit further contended that the personal pay of Rs.750/- has been given to those who are working as High School Headmaster in ordinary grade, instead of special allowance of Rs.500/- by giving monetary effect from 01.01.2011 and the said pay of Rs.750/- will be taken into account along with Annual Increment, Dearness Allowance as well, for pensionary benefit; that the petitioner had drawn personal pay of Rs.500/- from the date of promotion of High School Headmaster w.e.f. 29.05.2005 that he had drawn personal pay of Rs.750/- in the post of High School Headmaster pursuant to G.O.23. Therefore, it was found that the petitioner had drawn personal pay 2 times i.e., one in the post of Headmaster which is irregular as per Rules and Regulations.

13. The respondents by the counter affidavit further contended that personal pay of Rs.750/- was given for the post of Headmaster instead of Special Allowance of Rs.500/- given to him earlier; and that the petitioner wrongly noted that the personal pay of Rs.750/- was given to him instead of personal pay of Rs.500/- which is only a special allowance but not personal pay as noted clearly in G.O.Ms.No.23 dated 12.01.2011.

14. Contending as above, the respondent seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.

15. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

16. Though the petitioner had claimed that he is entitled for being granted personal pay of Rs.750/- which is to be reckoned for the purpose of fixing his pensionary benefits, it is to be noted that the petitioner did not retire in the post of High School Headmaster or Headmaster of Higher Secondary School for him to claim the personal pay. On the other hand, the petitioner was granted promotion from the post of High School Headmaster to District Educational Officer on 26.07.2013 and had retired in the post of District Educational Officer on 31.05.2016, in which post, there is no personal pay.

17. Further, the petitioner having retired in the promoted post of District Educational Officer, the last drawn pay in the said post would be taken into consideration for granting pensionary benefits by counting the period of service. Since, the last drawn pay of the petitioner as District Educational Officer was taken into consideration for fixing the pensionary benefits, the petitioner cannot claim that on account of non-consideration of difference in personal pay, lesser pensionary benefits are granted to him. The said claim of the petitioner could have been valid if only he had retired without having been granted promotion to the post of District Educational Officer.

18. Though on behalf of the respondents, it is contended that the petitioner on being granted selection grade having agreed to take increase of 3% over ordinary scale as prevailing at that time, the said issue becomes academic, as the petitioner had been promoted to the next higher level having a different scale of pay and the said scale of pay being considered for grant of pensionary benefits.

19. Thus, this Court is of the view that as the pension of the petitioner has been fixed on the basis of last drawn pay in the post of District Educational Officer and the petitioner having not raised any claim with regard to difference of pay for the period from 01.01.2011 to 25.07.2013 when he was promoted to the post of District Educational Officer, the petitioner cannot claim for payment of arrears of pay for the said period, as the said claim is hit by delay and latches.

20. In so far as re-fixation of pension is concerned, as noted herein above, since, the pension is fixed on the basis of Last Drawn Pay in the post of District Educational Officer, the claim of the petitioner cannot be accepted.

21. Thus, considered from any angle, the present writ petition as filed is devoid of merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.