The Kerala High Court on Wednesday, August 24, 2011 in a judgment titled as T. Mohanan Vs. State of Kerala, 2012 (3) KLT 92 : 2012 (2) KHC 887 held that if a benefit which is granted with regard to promotion or pay scale is sought to be reversed from an anterior date, the same will be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Justice T.R. Ramachandran Nair observed that once the pay fixation has been made validly which was been enjoyed by the petitioner, it has become the right vested upon him.
A vested right cannot be affected by any amendment of the Rule retrospectively.
the judgment said.
The petitioner retired from service as Headmaster. He entered service in the post of P.D Teacher. He was entitled for Selection Grade on completion of 23 years of service.
The Government order dated 07-03-1991 whereby, with regard to Headmasters of Primary Schools and High Schools, certain norms were adopted for fixation of pay on notional basis in the Selection Grade. Para.2(1) of the same permitted persons like the petitioner to submit the option.
Accordingly, the petitioner submitted option and the fixation was sanctioned. The date opted is 01-07-1992 in the selection grade. He was enjoying the benefit also. But, later, an audit objection was raised in the year 1999 and against the same, he approached the Accountant General.
The petitioner thereafter approached the Government. At that point of time, he was faced with recovery proceedings also. The Government finally rejected his claim. This is under challenge in this writ petition.
Case Law on Pay Fixation
Chairman, Railway Board and Others Vs. C.R. Ranqadhamaiah and Others, (1997) 6 SCC 623
“It can, therefore, be said that a rule which operates in futuro so as to govern future rights of those already in service cannot be assailed on the ground of retroactivity as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, but a rule which seeks to reverse from an anterior date a benefit which has been granted or availed of, e.g., promotion or pay scale, can be assailed as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution to the extent it operates retrospectively.”
Advocates P.M. Pareeth appeared for the Petitioner and Rani Diothima, Government Pleader for the Respondents.