WP/1792/2016 of S.Ravikumar Vs The Accountant General on 16 September 2026

COMMON ORDER

Since the issue is involved in all the writ petitions is one and the same and they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners; learned counsel for the first respondent and the leaned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the second respondent.

3. For convenience, the facts as set out in W.P.No.1792 of 2016 are being referred to.

4. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that while he was working as a Tinker Grade I in Police Transport Workshop-cum-Training School, Avadi, he was granted 5% personal pay of basic pay in terms of G.O.Ms.No.664 Finance (Pay and Cell) Department dated 24.08.1992; and that the respondents continued to pay the said personal pay till he attained the age of superannuation and retiring from service on 30.06.2015.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that the second respondent, by the impugned proceedings dated 09.07.2015, after his retirement, had sought to recover the 5% personal pay granted to him on the ground that he is not entitled to the aforesaid pay and ordered recovery of the personal pay, amounting to Rs.1,35,782/- from his DCRG amount, which is payable on his retirement.

6. The petitioner further contended that, since, he falls under Group - D category of service and had played no role in the grant of 5% personal pay from the year 2012, the respondents cannot allege that the said payment was made on account of any misrepresentation by him and therefore, the respondents could not have issued the impugned proceedings for recovery of the alleged excess personal pay from the DCRG amount on his retirement; and that the aforesaid action of the respondent is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih , (2015) 4 SCC

334.

7. Contending as above, the petitioner seeks for setting aside the impugned proceedings and refund of the amount.

8. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the second respondent submits that as per G.O.Ms.No.664 dated 24.08.1992, the 5% personal pay was allowed only in respect of four categories of staff in the scale of pay specified in the aforesaid G.O, and since, the petitioner was in the pay scale Rs.555 - 990 and the said scale of pay not being mentioned in the categories referred to in G.O.Ms.No.664, the petitioner is not entitled to be granted 5% of the basic pay as personal pay, as such, the impugned proceedings has been issued for recovery of the excess amount of salary paid to the petitioner and thus, the aforesaid proceedings does not suffer from any illegality.

9. The first respondent, by the counter affidavit filed, had claimed that since, G.O.Ms.No.664 dated 24.08.1992 grants personal pay only in respect of four categories of staff having the scale of pay specified therein; and that the scale of pay is different from the scale of pay mentioned in the aforesaid G.O., the petitioner is not entitled to be granted 5% personal pay.

10. The respondent by the counter affidavit, further contended that the aforesaid G.O. makes it clear that the said benefit granted under the aforementioned G.O. is specific to the categories mentioned therein and cannot be extended to others and, as such, the impugned proceedings does not call for any interference by this Court.

11. Contending as above, the respondents seek for dismissal of the writ petition(s).

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

13. At the outset, it is to be noted that the impugned proceedings for the grant of personal pay is referable to G.O.Ms.No.664 dated 24.08.1992. The aforesaid grant of personal pay under the aforementioned G.O. to other categories of staff whose pay scale was not mentioned in the aforesaid G.O. was the subject matter of consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of V.Rathinagiri vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, W.P.Nos.20156 and 13143 of 2000, dated 10.03.2006, wherein it was held that 5% personal pay is eligible to be granted to pay scales which are higher and lower than the scale pay drawn by the petitioner therein and the revised pay scales which are in-between the scales mentioned in the aforesaid G.O. would also be entitled to the said benefit.

14. Though another Division Bench of this Court a decade later, took a different view in Y.Immanuel vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, W.P.No.6754 of 2015 dated 07.03.2017, the other Co-ordinate benches of this Court followed the Judgment of this Court in V.Rathinagiri vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (supra) over the contrary decision in Y.Immanuel case (supra). Yet another Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.22447 of 2018 concurred with the view taken in V.Rathinagiri case (supra).

15. In view of the above and in order to maintain judicial discipline and parity and to give finality to the issue this Court is required to follow the decision of the Division Bench which has been followed by the Co-ordinate Benches.

16. Thus, this Court is of the view that the petitioner whose pay scale is Rs.555 – 990, which is in-between the scale of pay mentioned in Sl.No.(i) & (ii) of paragraph 4 of the G.O., would be entitled for being granted personal pay of 5% of the basic pay.

17. The above being the view taken by this Court following the earlier decisions of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court and also Co-ordinate Benches of this Court, the impugned proceedings by which the respondent recovered the 5% of personal pay granted to the petitioner would have to be held as illegal. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings is set aside.

18. Notwithstanding the fact that this Court is holding that the impugned proceedings as unsustainable, the fact of the petitioner being Group -D staff, would also result in the respondents not being entitled to recover the 5% of personal pay paid to the petitioner from the year 2012 on the basis of the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.664 claiming that the petitioner is not entitled to the said pay as it does not fall within the four categories of pay sale mentioned in the aforesaid G.O.

19. It is to be noted that it is the respondents who had granted the said benefit to the petitioner and there was no misrepresentation at the hands of the petitioner for claiming the said benefit. Further, the respondent does not claim that it is on account of any misrepresentation by the petitioner that such benefit having been extended to him. Besides, by applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334, which principle has been reiterated by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Others vs. Jagdev Singh (2016) 14 SCC 267 and the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. N.M.Raut 2024 SCC Online SC 3873, the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained.

20. Accordingly, these writ petition(s) are allowed and the impugned proceedings are set aside. The respondents are directed to refund the amount deducted from the petitioners’ DCRG amount within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

21. It is made clear that if the respondents fail to refund the aforesaid amount within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the respondents shall be liable to pay interest on the said amount at the rate of 8% till its actual payment to the petitioners. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 16.09.2026 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No KKD To

1. The Accountant General (Accounts and Entitlements), Tamil Nadu, Chennai- 600 018.

2. The Commandant, TSP Regimental Centre, Avadi, Chennai- 600 054, (i/c Works Manager), Police Transport Workshop-cum-Training School, Avadi, Chennai – 600 054.

T.VINOD KUMAR J. KKD WP Nos. 1792, 4500 to 4502 of 2016 16-09-2026