W.P No. 39555 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM DATED : 01.08.2025 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR W.P No. 39555 of 2016 AND WMP.Nos. 33838 & 33839 of 2016 V.Rajalakshmi ..Petitioner Vs 1.The Principal Accountant General (A&E), Tamil Nadu Office of the Accountant General Office, Teynampet, Chennai -600018. 2.The Principal Secretary/Commissioner, Civil Supplies & Consumer Protection Department, Chepauk, Chennai-600005. 3.The Assistant Commissioner, Civil Supply & Consumer Protection Department, Anna Nagar Zone, Chennai-600106. ..Respondents. Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 05.10.2015 bearing No. PrAG(A&E)/Pen P12/11213993/1/R0309374 and impugned order dated 03.10.2016 bearing No. P12/3/11215141/ADK passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same as 1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P No. 39555 of 2016 illegal and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to repay the recovered amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and pass such further or other orders. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Subburaj For Respondents : Mrs. J.Sreevidya, AGSC – R1 Mr.C.Selvaraj, AGP - R2 ORDER The captioned writ petition has been filed seeking the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, assailing the order dated 05.10.2015 passed by the 1st respondent. By the said order, the proposal sent by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent for granting one bonus increment to the petitioner was rejected, on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to the said benefit as he had refused promotion. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Steno-Typist Grade III in the respondent-department on 09.08.1977 and voluntarily retired from service on 30.07.2013. During his tenure, he had refused promotion to the next higher post. He was denied the benefit of one bonus increment on the ground that, as per Government Order in G.O. Ms. No. 562, Finance Department, dated 28.10.1998, employees stagnating in a post beyond 30 years—i.e., stagnating in 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P No. 39555 of 2016 the Special Grade for more than 10 years—would be granted one bonus increment as an incentive. This benefit was made effective from 01.09.1998. However, the petitioner was denied this increment on the sole ground that he had refused the next higher promotion. 3. Arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and the materials placed on record have been duly considered. 4. A similar issue was considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.12640 of 2012, by order dated 29.01.2020, wherein paragraph 6 reads as follows: “6. The only issue to be decided in this matter is whether the petitioner is entitled to receive the bonus increment or not. A perusal of the Government Order in G.O.Ms. No. 562 dated 28.09.1998 would show that employees stagnating in a post beyond 30 years, i.e., employees stagnating in the Special Grade beyond 10 years, shall be granted one bonus increment as an incentive, and the same was made effective from 01.09.1998. Further, it is to be noted that there is no specific mention in the above Government Order that, upon subsequent relinquishment of promotion, the incentive granted earlier must be cancelled. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner retired from service on 30.05.2016. It is also noted 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P No. 39555 of 2016 that other employees who were granted the bonus increment continued to draw the same benefit even after refusing subsequent promotions. Therefore, mere relinquishment of promotional opportunities does not affect the granting of the bonus increment as an incentive. Hence, I am inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent.” 5. A similar issue was also examined by another Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.6310 of 2016, wherein paragraph 6 reads as follows: “6. The respondents also relied on the clarification issued in Circular dated 11.10.2001, wherein it is stated that if the employee does not avail promotion, then they are not entitled to stagnation increment. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder: ‘(,) 30 Mz;Lfs; gjtp cah;t[ bgwhky; njf;fk; fz;Ls;sth;fSf;F xU rYifahfnt nghd!; Cf;f Cjpa cah;t[ tHq;fg;gLfpwJ. Kiwahff; fpilj;j gjtp cah;it Jwe;jth;fs; ,r;rYifiaf; nfhu chpikapy;iy/ On perusing the said circular, this Court is of the considered opinion that the circular is totally inconsistent with the G.O. The G.O. clearly states that any employee who stagnates in the same post for more than 30 years is entitled to a bonus increment to keep them motivated and active during the final years of service. However, through the circular, the eligibility criteria have been narrowed. Such a circular 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P No. 39555 of 2016 cannot be sustained in law, because when a circular is inconsistent with a Government Order, the latter will prevail. If the respondents intended to restrict eligibility, they ought to have amended G.O. Ms. No. 562. Since the Government Order specifically allows the stagnation increment, the right accrued under the G.O. cannot be nullified by an executive order. Therefore, this circular cannot be accepted.” 6. In light of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the right accrued to the petitioner under the G.O. which provides for stagnation increment irrespective of Petitioner denying promotion cannot be nullified. 7. Therefore, impugned order dated 05.10.2015 bearing No. PrAG(A&E)/Pen P12/11213993/1/R0309374, and the impugned order dated 03.10.2016 bearing No. P12/3/11215141/ADK passed by the 1st respondent, are set aside. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the proposal sent by the 2nd respondent and grant one bonus increment to the petitioner in accordance with the aforementioned decisions of this Court. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P No. 39555 of 2016 8. With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. 01.08.2025 Index : Yes Internet : Yes ak To 1.The Principal Accountant General (A&E), Tamil Nadu Office of the Accountant General Office, Teynampet, Chennai -600018. 2.The Principal Secretary/Commissioner, Civil Supplies & Consumer Protection Department, Chepauk, Chennai-600005. 3.The Assistant Commissioner, Civil Supply & Consumer Protection Department, Anna Nagar Zone, Chennai-600106. 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P No. 39555 of 2016 HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J. ak W.P No. 39555 of 2016 01.08.2025 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis