Madras High Court
N.Nagarathinam vs The District Educational Officer on 11 October, 2022
W.A.No.1274 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.10.2022
CORAM :
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.1274 of 2021
N.Nagarathinam .. Appellant
vs
1.The District Educational Officer,
Erode.
2.The Principal Accountant General (A&E),
Office of Accountant General,
Teynampet, Chennai – 18.
3.The Headmaster,
Government High School,
Kavilipalayam,
Sathiyamangalam Taluk,
Erode District. .. Respondents
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the
order dated 18.11.2019 made in W.P.No.17932 of 2015.
For Appellant : Mr.R.D.Ashok Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.R.Neethiperumal
Government Advocate
for R1 and R3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 6
W.A.No.1274 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY.,J)
1. Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated
18.11.2019 recorded on W.P.No.17932 of 2015. This appeal is by
the unsuccessful writ petitioner.
2. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that,
the writ petitioner had approached this Court twice making his
grievance that, an amount of Rs.1,40,023/- was arbitrarily
recovered from the writ petitioner, for no fault on his part and
therefore the same be directed to be refunded to the writ petitioner.
It is further submitted that, the writ petitioner was entitled to the
pay, which was fixed and therefore on merits also, the recovery was
unsustainable. It is submitted that this appeal be entertained.
3. On the other hand learned Government Advocate has
vehemently opposed this appeal. It is submitted that, learned Single
Judge, on the basis of the material on record has rightly arrived at
the conclusion that the writ petitioner was not entitled to any relief
and therefore no interference be made by this Court. It is submitted
that, rejection of writ petition, in the facts of the case, can not be
said to be an error much less any error apparent on the face of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1274 of 2021
record which may call for any interference under Clause 15 of
Letters Patent. It is submitted that this appeal be dismissed.
4. Having heard learned advocates for the respective
parties and having considered the material on record, this Court
finds as under:-
4.1 The writ petitioner retired from the service on attaining
the age of superannuation on 31.05.2013.
4.2 After the retirement of the writ petitioner, an order was
passed on 15.07.2013 intimating the petitioner that from the
retirement benefits available to the writ petitioner, the amount of
Rs.1,40,023/- is adjusted towards recovery, which is worked out by
the State as an excess payment on wrong fixation of pay at the time
of his appointment in December 1996.
4.3 The writ petitioner was granted benefit of increments for
having higher qualification, than what was required for the post, and
that pay fixation continued all throughout his career. It is the case
of the State Authorities that, that benefit ought not to have been
granted to the writ petitioner in the year 1996. Attempt is also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1274 of 2021
made on behalf of the authorities to point out that, the said
qualification subsequently became the necessary qualification and
the increments ought not to have been granted to the writ
petitioner.
4.4 We find that, the pay of the writ petitioner could not
have been re-fixed to his detriment, this way. Further, in any case,
the writ petitioner was not to be blamed for it. Still further, this
could not have been permitted to be recovered from the retirement
benefits of the writ petitioner. For all these reasons, we find that,
the order dated 13.07.2013 which was earlier impugned in the first
round of litigation, which was already set aside for compliance of
the principles of natural justice, was even otherwise unsustainable
on merits and no amount could have been permitted to be
recovered from the writ petitioner, much less from his retirement
dues. Since we find that, very action of the State Authorities was
unsustainable, both in substance and in procedure, any subsequent
proceedings will not change the complexion of the matter.
5. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is
passed:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1274 of 2021
5.1 This appeal is allowed.
5.2 The impugned order dated 18.11.2019 recorded on
W.P.No.17932 of 2015 is quashed and set aside.
5.3 The writ petition is allowed.
5.4 Since the amount of Rs.1,40,023/- is already recovered
by the State Authorities, it is directed that the said amount shall be
refunded to the writ petitioner, along with statutory interest as per
the policy of the State, within a period of twelve weeks from today.
5.5 No costs. C.M.P., if any, would not survive.
(P.U., J) (D.B.C., J)
11.10.2022
Index:No
ssm/35
To
1.The District Educational Officer,
Erode.
2.The Principal Accountant General (A&E),
Office of Accountant General,
Teynampet, Chennai – 18.
3.The Headmaster,
Government High School,
Kavilipalayam, Sathiyamangalam Taluk,
Erode District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1274 of 2021
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
ssm
W.A.No.1274 of 2021
11.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
