JOHNALAGADDA VENKATARAJU Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 1495, dated 2 July 1955.

(2.) THE petitioner joined service in the year 1940 in Mallavaram estate as a clerk on a monthly salary of Rs. 25. He was promoted as a revenue inspector in 1942 on a salary of Rs. 35 per month. Consequent upon the subdivision of the Patavala estate, in 1947, one-eighth of that estate merged in the Mallavaram estate. On 4 August 1947 the petitioner was promoted as the tanedar for the whole of the estate. According to the petitioner, his pay as and from the date of his promotion as tanedar was raised from Rs. 35 to Rs. 60 per month. According to the averments contained in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent 2, the petitioner was no doubt receiving Ra. 60 per month, but he was paid part of the amount, i. e. , Rs. 25 as allowance, known as tanedar's allowance, till 7 September 1950, the date on which the estate was notified and taken over under the provisions of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948.

(3.) UNDER the rules framed by the Government for continuing or terminating the services of the existing staff in the estates after the notified date, a person who was employed in the administration of an estate immediately before the notified date and who was not willing to serve under the Government after such date, should be formally discharged. A person who was, however, retained in service should be paid, pending the fixation of pay or scale of pay, at the rate at which or in the scale in which he drew his pay immediately before the date on which the management of the estate was assumed by the Government. Under Rule 7 it is provided that where any person who is retained possessed all the qualifications prescribed for the corresponding post in Government service, he should be allowed the scale of pay applicable to that post and his pay in the scale fixed at the stage next below the pay fixed under Rule 2 (3) (a ). By an amendment of the rules made on 26 November 1951, a proviso was added to Rule 7 on which, in fact, the petitioner's claim for relief in the writ petition is based. The proviso reads: