A. Jayasingh, v. Government of Tamil Nadu

ORDER The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the 2nd respondent, whereby the petitioner's pension was reduced by downgrading her pay.

2.The petitioner joined the service of the 3rd respondent College on

01.07.1987 and was promoted as Lab Assistant on 01.04.1993. He was granted Selection Grade on 01.04.2003 and Special Grade on 01.04.2013. Thereafter, he retired from service on 30.06.2013.

3.The petitioner's basic pay was fixed at Rs.14,350/- with Grade Pay of Rs.4,200/- in the pay scale of Rs.9,300–34,800 + GP Rs.4,200/-. According to the petitioner, his pensionary benefits were subsequently downgraded without issuing any notice or affording him an opportunity of being heard. Page3 of 6

¶4The impugned order dated 03.07.2015 reads as follows: "REMARK IN ADMISSIBILITY REPORT – 30.07.2015 PRO. NO. R2314660 LAB ASSISTANT ARE NOT ENTITLED FOR ADDL FITMENT TABLE ON 01/01/2015 AS PER ONE MAN COMMISSION. EXCESS PAID PAY AND ALLOWANCE MAY BE RECOVERED."

¶5The impugned order does not disclose any proper reasons for the reduction of pensionary benefits. The petitioner had been receiving pension based on his last drawn pay and the same has been altered without notice. Such action, taken behind the back of the petitioner, cannot be sustained in law.

¶6The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the revised pension, as he was not eligible under the fitment table prescribed by the One Man Commission.

¶7The 3rd respondent submitted that a proposal had been sent to the 2nd respondent stating that the petitioner was not entitled to such pensionary benefits. However, it is not in dispute that the petitioner's emoluments were calculated as Basic Pay of Rs.14,350/- + Grade Pay of Rs.4,200/-, totaling Rs.18,550/-, and pension was sanctioned accordingly. When such benefits have already been granted, any subsequent downgrading of pension must be preceded by due notice and an opportunity of hearing. In the absence of such procedural safeguards, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Page4 of 6

¶8Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed, and the Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to restore the petitioner's pension based on the last drawn pay and to pay the arrears with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of reduction till the date of payment. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Failing which, the petitioner is at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. 16-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order JRS Page5 of 6 To

¶1The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu Finance Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.

¶2The Principal Accountant General, Office of the Principal Accountant General (Accounts & Entitlements) Tamil Nadu 381, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 010

¶3The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tanjore Region, Tanjore

¶4The Secretary , TBML College, Porayar - 609 307, Nagapattinam district.

¶5The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. WPoNo.o36167oofo2015 N.SENTHILKUMARoJ. JRS WPoNo.o36167oofo2015 and MP.Nos.1o&o2oofo2015 16-04-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR and MP.Nos.1 & 2 of 2015 A. Jayasingh, S/o. J. Arugraham, No.4/3, Church Street, Porayar, Nagapattinam district - 609 307 ..Petitioner Vs 1. Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary, Finance Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9. 2. Principal Accountant General, Office of the Principal Accountant General (Accounts & Entitlements) Tamil Nadu 381, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 010. 3. Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tanjore Region, Tanjore. 4. TBML College, Rep. by its Secretary, Porayar - 609 307, Nagapattinam district ..Respondents PRAYER: This Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings P23/12314660/1/PPO No. R2314660 dated.03.07.2015 issued by the 2nd respondent, and to quash the remarks in admissibility report and consequently direct the respondents to sanction pension, gratuity and other terminal benefits as per the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated.08.04.2015. Page2 of 6 For Petitioner: Ms.Vaisali, for Mr.R.Subramanian, For Respondent(s): Mr.Azizulla Khan, Government Advocate for R1, Mr.P.Manorajan, Standing Counsel for Accountant General for R2, Mr.Vadivelu Deenadayalan, Additional Government Pleader for R3, R4 (Colledge) - No Appearance