S RAMASAMY Vs. DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES AND ACCOUNTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has stated that he had joined in service as a Junior Assistant in the month of May, 1959. Later, he was promoted as an Assistant and then as a Sub Treasury Officer Grade II, on 27.12.1974. THEreafter, the petitioner was promoted from Grade II to Grade I, on 9.6.1989 and his pay was fixed at Rs.2,000/-, by an order, dated 29.7.1989. THE pay scale of the Sub Treasury Officer Grade I was originally Rs.1640-2900, and with effect from 3.10.1989 the pay scale was changed to Rs.1820-3200/-. When the petitioner was promoted from Sub Treasury Officer Grade I to Assistant Treasury Officer, his pay was fixed at Rs.2240/-, with effect from 4.7.1991.

(2.) THE petitioner has further stated that the Government of Tamil Nadu had passed G.O.Ms.No.580, dated 1.8.1992, by which the post of Sub Treasury Officer Grade I was upgraded as Assistant Treasury Officer, with retrospective effect from 1.6.1988. According to the said Government order, as classified by the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 21.9.1992, the upgradation was ordered, retrospectively, with effect from 1.6.1988, on a notional basis with monetary benefits from 1.4.1992. Later it was clarified that the panel prepared for promotion to the post of Assistant Treasury Officer in the year, 1992, shall stand exhausted. THE petitioner was not aware of the said order and in any event the Government Order, dated 1.8.1992, could not have affected him, since he had been promoted on 4.7.1991 itself. All of a sudden, by an order, dated 25.10.1993, the second respondent had cancelled the earlier fixation of pay made on 6.9.1991, to the petitioner on his promotion as Assistant Treasury Officer and re-fixed his pay at Rs.2240/-, with effect from 1.4.1993. In fact, the petitioner was drawing a basic pay of Rs.2375/- whereas, by virtue of the order of cancellation, his pay was reduced to Rs.2240/- per month i.e., resulting in a monthly loss of Rs.135/- in the basic pay alone. THErefore, the petitioner had made a detailed representation, on 4.11.1993, pointing out the facts and requested the respondents to allow him to continue to draw the earlier pay of Rs.2375/-, as on 1.7.1993. Since there was no response, the petitioner had submitted a further representations to the first respondent, on 10.2.1994 and 31.10.1994.

(3.) THE main ground raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the scale of pay fixed earlier has been re-fixed without giving him an opportunity to putforth his case. In such circumstances, the impugned order of the second respondent relating to his proceedings Roc.7231/93(a1), dated 25.10.1993, and the appellate order passed by the first respondent and communicated, vide proceedings Roc.A1/22740/95, dated 20.10.1995, are to be set aside.