Satyanarayana Raju, J.
1. This is a petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 1495, dated 2 July 1955.
2. The petitioner joined service in the year 1940 in Mallavaram estate as a clerk on a monthly salary of Rs. 25. He was promoted as a revenue inspector in 1942 on a salary of Rs. 35 per month. Consequent upon the subdivision of the Patavala estate, in 1947, one-eighth of that estate merged in the Mallavaram estate. On 4 August 1947 the petitioner was promoted as the tanedar for the whole of the estate. According to the petitioner, his pay as and from the date of his promotion as tanedar was raised from Rs. 35 to Rs. 60 per month. According to the averments contained in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent 2, the petitioner was no doubt receiving Ra. 60 per month, but he was paid part of the amount, i.e., Rs. 25 as allowance, known as tanedar's allowance, till 7 September 1950, the date on which the estate was notified and taken over under the provisions of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948.
3. Under the rules framed by the Government for continuing or terminating the services of the existing staff in the estates after the notified date, a person who was employed in the administration of an estate immediately before the notified date and who was not willing to serve under the Government after such date, should be formally discharged. A person who was, however, retained in service should be paid, pending the fixation of pay or scale of pay, at the rate at which or in the scale in which he drew his pay immediately before the date on which the management of the estate was assumed by the Government. Under Rule 7 it is provided that where any person who is retained possessed all the qualifications prescribed for the corresponding post in Government service, he should be allowed the scale of pay applicable to that post and his pay in the scale fixed at the stage next below the pay fixed under Rule 2(3)(a). By an amendment of the rules made on 26 November 1951, a proviso was added to Rule 7 on which, in fact, the petitioner's claim for relief in the writ petition is based. The proviso reads:
Provided that personal pay may be granted to him to avoid any loss of emoluments and the personal pay be granted shall be absorbed in future increments.
It is urged for the petitioner that under the aforesaid rules it was incumbent on the Government to fix the petitioner's pay according to the remuneration received by him while in the estate service. It is complained by the petitioner that while so, the respondent fixed his pay at Rs. 35 erroneously treating his previous pay of Rs. 60 as being made up of Rs. 35 pay and Rs. 25 tanedar's allowance, contrary to and in direct violation of the rules. It is on the other hand contended by the learned Government Pleader that there is no violation of Rule 2(3)(a). He submitted that the proviso to Rule 7 could not apply to the case of the petitioner as he did not possess the qualifications prescribed for the post of a clerk in which he was appointed in the regular department.
4. It is clear from the order of the landholder dated 4 August 1947 appointing the petitioner as tanedar that his pay of Rs. 35 was not enhanced and that he was given only a duty allowance of Rs. 25 for working as tanedar.
5. The question which falls for determination in this case is whether the petitioner is entitled to claim that the allowance which he was receiving should be included in his pay.
6. Under the rules framed under Section 60, three expressions are found used. They are:
7. 'Remuneration' is a wider term than 'salary' or 'pay.' It includes the pay and allowances which an employee receives. Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure speaks of pay and allowances. Having regard to the juxtaposition in which those expressions are used in the Code, it is clear that the two are not synonymous. 'Allowance' is a payment received by an employee beyond the agreed salary for additional services rendered by him. If what the petitioner was paid by the landholder, when he was employed in the service of the estate immediately before the notified date, consisting partly of pay and partly of allowance, there is no question of the petitioner Claiming that he is entitled to the payment of Rs. 60 per month as his pay.
8. Mr. Suryaprakasa Rao, however, has drawn my attention to an order passed by Government with regard to an erstwhile employee of an estate, where it was stated that the intention of the rules framed under Section 60 of the Abolition Act was that the estate employees retained under that section should not suffer any loss in emoluments on account of the changeover. The learned Government Pleader could not get a copy of the order and there is no knowing under which circumstances this order was made. Assuming, however, that the petitioner is right in his contention that the order was meant to be of universal application to the erstwhile employees of all estates, the question is whether the word 'emoluments' covers the allowance which the petitioner was receiving while he was serving as a tanedar. There is no doubt that if the facts are as stated by the landholder, namely, that the petitioner was receiving a duty allowance of Rs. 25 in addition to his pay of Rs. 35, the contention of the petitioner that 'pay' includes 'allowance' and as such his total emoluments of Rs. 60 ought to have been taken into account while fixing his pay, cannot be accepted. As already pointed out, the very term 'allowance' connotes that it is a payment beyond the agreed salary of an officer for additional services rendered by him. The allowance was paid to the petitioner by virtue of his performing the duties appurtenant to the office of tanedar; and it was payable to him only for the period during which he was discharging the duties assigned to that post. I am, therefore, unable to agree with the petitioner's contention.
9. That apart, the order of the Collector, which the petitioner impugns, was passed on 28 September 1950, and that of the Board of Revenue on 27 August 1951. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a memorial which was rejected by the Government on 2 July 1915. The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 in April 1957. There has been no attempt by the petitioner to satisfactorily explain this inordinate delay in his seeking relief in this Court. For this reason also, the petitioner cannot invoke the prerogative jurisdiction of this Court.
10. Under the circumstances, the petition is dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee, Rs. 100.