The proposed Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madras High Court is not only feasible but carries a exceptionally high probability of success.

The action of the Principal Accountant General (AG), Chennai, in returning/objecting to the pension proposal, along with the subsequent coercion by the Block Educational Officer (BEO) to accept a reduced Grade Pay of ₹4,700, is legally unsustainable, arbitrary, and directly contrary to established statutory rules and binding High Court precedents.

The client served and retired in the cadre of Primary School Headmaster without taking any promotion. Therefore, applying this restriction letter to reduce her legitimate Selection Grade pay is a misapplication of administrative instructions.

Under G.O. Ms. No. 23, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 12.01.2011, read with Government Letter No. 63305/Pay Cell/2010-1 dated 05.01.2012, Primary School Headmasters who were awarded Selection Grade between 01.01.2006 and 31.05.2009 are legally entitled to the revised Selection Grade Pay of ₹5,400 (Pay Band 2: ₹9,300–34,800 + GP 5400). Having attained Selection Grade on 07.07.2008 (falling precisely within the window of 01.01.2006 to 31.05.2009), her entitlement is statutorily protected.

Under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, pension and DCRG must be calculated strictly on the basis of the Last Drawn Pay (Emoluments).

The Accountant General has no unilateral authority to re-fix or reduce pay that was granted nearly two decades ago (2008) and continuously drawn until superannuation without any misrepresentation or fraud by the employee.

The BEO may press the client to sign an undertaking agreeing to ₹4,700 Grade Pay under the guise of "speedy settlement". Do not sign any undertaking or reduced option form. Any signed consent will complicate the litigation and may be argued by the AG as voluntary acceptance.

Standard writ proceedings may take time. Hence you file an urgent interim direction application for immediate payment of re-employment monthly salary, as non-payment directly affects livelihood. High Courts generally grant swift interim relief where salary is unlawfully withheld.

You must file writ petition in HC you have h good case on merits 

2) The AG’s objection relies heavily on School Education Dept. Letter No. 11100/Ele.Edn(1)/2023-1 dated 15.12.2023. Paragraph 4 explicitly restricts the ₹5,400 Grade Pay only for teachers promoted as B.T. Assistants or Middle School Headmasters. Because you served and retired strictly as a Primary School Headmaster, this restriction cannot be forced upon 

3) Under G.O. Ms. No. 23 (Finance) dated 12.01.2011 and the Government Clarification Letter dated 05.01.2012, Primary School Headmasters who achieved Selection Grade between 01.01.2006 and 31.05.2009 are unconditionally entitled to a Grade Pay of ₹5,400. You attained this grade on 07.07.2008, positioning you squarely within this legal entitlement framework.

4) : The Madras High Court in W.P. No. 12275 of 2024 (Order dt. 02.03.2026)and M. Sargunam v. State of TN (W.P. No. 26264 of 2026, Order dt. 15.07.2026) ruled that pay structures cannot be retroactively slashed without an explicit amendment to FR 22-B. The court mandated that pension must be calculated based on Last Drawn Pay, and recovery against retired employees is prohibited as per the landmark Supreme Court decision in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih.

1. Statutory Entitlement and Government Orders
G.O. Ms. No. 23 (Finance) unequivocally entitles Primary School Headmasters awarded Selection Grade between 01.01.2006 and 31.05.2009 to a ₹5,400 Grade Pay. The restrictive letter dated 15.12.2023 explicitly limits this higher pay to B.T. Assistants or Middle School Headmasters. Since the client served exclusively as a Primary School Headmaster without any promotion, the Accountant General's objection is legally unsustainable and directly contradicts the explicit government mandate.

2. Favorable High Court Precedents
Recent Madras High Court judgments provide robust legal protection. In W.P. No. 12275 of 2024, the Court ruled that pay cannot be reduced without amending FR 22-B, and pension must be fixed strictly on last drawn pay without recoveries. Furthermore, in WP(MD).No.5987 of 2026, the Court directly addressed this ₹5,400 to ₹4,700 reduction and ordered the release of benefits. These binding precedents squarely cover the client's factual matrix and strengthen the writ petition.

3. Procedural Irregularity and Administrative Inconsistency
The BEO officially accepted the client's detailed reply in 2025, dropped all proceedings, and forwarded the pension proposal at ₹5,400 to the AG. Now, under AG pressure, the same BEO is coercing acceptance of a lower pay scale. This arbitrary about-face constitutes a clear procedural violation and bad faith. Such administrative inconsistency is a strong ground for judicial intervention, as the initial decision had attained finality, and re-opening it violates principles of natural justice.

4. Severe Financial Impact and Overall Viability
The AG's objection causes a reduced monthly pension, unlawful recoveries from DCRG/Gratuity and Leave Encashment, and the current withholding of re-employment salary arrears. Given the clear statutory entitlement, binding judicial precedents, and procedural lapses, filing a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus is highly viable and strongly recommended. The petition should seek quashing of the AG's letter and immediate issuance of the PPO at ₹5,400, ideally accompanied by an interim stay application to stop recoveries.

Dear Sir/Madam, 

It is suggested that before apporaching to High Court, you may approach CAT if possible and if not, then approach high court in writ jurisdiction because there are several judgments stating therein that pay grade once paid can't be reduced later and no recovery can be made.