Can a writ court exercising judicial review interfere with pay fixed by the competent authority unless there is a palpable or manifest error?

The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 03.05.2021 for revising his pay based on the additional fitment table, granting the difference in pay arrears, disbursing the arrears towards surrender leave salary and sending the revised pension proposal based on the additional fitment table.

The petitioner, appearing as party-in-person, would vehemently contend that one Navaneetha Krishnan was also recruited along with the petitioner and that, while re-fixation was made, his basic pay of Rs.10,750/- was revised to Rs.20,400/- as per the additional fitment table provided under the Government Letter dated 15.09.2010. Whereas, in the case of the petitioner, his basic pay was Rs.17,000/- and, if the same is multiplied by the factor of 1.86, it would come to Rs.19,995/-. Therefore, according to the petitioner, as the additional fitment table was applied in the case of the said Navaneetha Krishnan, his pay ought to have been fixed at Rs.21,660/-. However, the respondents have not fixed the pay of the petitioner on par with the said Navaneetha Krishnan. Hence, he seeks revision of his pay.

Per contra, the said contention was stoutly opposed by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first to third respondents and would contend that, as per the clarification issued vide letter dated 21.03.2022, the similar claim of the petitioner has already been clarified. He would further contend that the revision of pay has to be made only on the basis of the basic pay and not on the basis of the selection grade pay. Whereas, the petitioner seeks revision of pay by taking into consideration the sum of Rs.10,750/-, which is his selection grade pay. Therefore, though applying the multiplier of 1.86 to the selection grade pay would result in a sum of Rs.19,995/-, the pay revision has to be made only by taking into consideration the basic pay of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has no right to seek a direction by way of Mandamus for consideration of his representation.

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.

This Court has elaborately heard the petitioner, who appeared as party-in-person. The main contention put forth by the petitioner is by way of comparison with the case of one Navaneetha Krishnan. Certain calculations were made with regard to the pay fixation of the said Navaneetha Krishnan. However, the question that arises for consideration is as to whether, notwithstanding the case of the said Navaneetha Krishnan, the petitioner is able to establish his entitlement under the relevant Government Order. On this aspect, the petitioner is not in a position to explain his stand, except by referring to the additional fitment table.

In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the clarification made by the learned Special Government Pleader. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, the revision of pay should be made only on the basis of the basic pay. Admittedly, the pay relied upon by the petitioner is his selection grade pay. Therefore, the question of relying upon the additional fitment table for revising the pay to Rs.21,660/- is not in consonance with the clarification issued by the Government vide its letter dated 21.03.2022.

Apart from that, the fixation of pay is within the domain of the experts. Unless there is a palpable or manifest error or an apparent arbitrary exercise of power, while exercising the power of judicial review, this Court cannot interfere with the matter in which the pay has been fixed by the competent authority. It is well-settled principle of law that, while exercising the power of judicial review, this Court can only have a mild re-look into the orders passed by the authorities concerned. On consideration of the same, this Court does not find any palpable error warranting interference or a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the present Writ Petition.

In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 05-10-2026