Madras High Court
R.Manivannan vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 22 August, 2023
W.P.No.9196 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.08.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.No.9196 of 2017
and
W.M.P.No.10125 of 2017
R.Manivannan .. Petitioner
vs
1.Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep. By its Principal Secretary to Government,
Finance (CMPC) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
School Education Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
3.The Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
4.The Joint Director of School Education (Vocational),
Thiruvarur, Thiruvarur District.
5.The Chief Educational Officer,
Thiruvarur, Thiruvarur District.
6.The District Educational Officer,
Thiruvarur, Thiruvarur District. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the
records of the 1st respondent in relation to para 3 of the
G.O.(Ms).No.263 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 22.07.2013
and Letter No.66858/CMPC/2013-2 dated 22.08.2014 and quash
the same in so far as it gives monetary benefits to the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/20
W.P.No.9196 of 2017
with effect from 01.04.2013 and in so far as it restricts the selection
grade scale of pay of the Vocational Instructor at Rs.9300 – 34800
+ 4800 GP and in so far as the petitioner is concerned and issue a
consequential direction to the respondents to grant the revised scale
of pay of Rs.9300 – 34800 + 4600 GP as ordinary grade to the
Vocational Instructor, like the petitioner with monetary benefit from
01.01.2011 and fix the petitioner's selection grade at Rs.15600 –
39100 + 5400 from 01.01.2011 with monetary benefits and grant
all consequential benefits to the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Saseetharan
For Respondents : Mr.V.Nanmaran
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
Writ petition had been filed in the nature of a certiorarified
mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent relating to
the proceedings dated 22.07.2013 and 22.08.2014 respectively and
quash the same and issue a direction to the said respondents to fix
Selection Grade Scale of Pay of the petitioner in the post of
Vocational Instructor at Rs.15600 - 39100 + 5400 GP and monetary
benefits from 01.04.2013.
2. The petitioner was originally appointed as Single Part
Time Vocational Instructor in Nidamangalam Aided Higher
Secondary School, Needamangalam, Thiruvarur District on
27.02.1985 on consolidated pay. He was then appointed on regular
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9196 of 2017
time scale of pay as Vocational Instructor with effect from
01.04.1990 in the time scale of pay of Rs.1400 – 2600. This was
the scale of pay for the post of B.T. Assistant. He was absorbed by
order dated 12.03.1991 of the Chief Educational Officer, Tanjavur.
The services in the post of Vocational Instructor was regularized
from 01.04.1990 by proceedings of the Joint Director of School
Education dated 10.07.2007. The scale of pay was given in
accordance with the recommendation of the V pay commission with
effect from 01.06.1988.
3. It must be pointed out that the Government had
brought in a policy change by introducing 10 + 2 course in schools
abolishing 11 + Pre University Course which was in effect earlier.
When the Higher Secondary Course or Plus Two was introduced,
several new subjects were also introduced. This necessitated
appointment of instructors, who were called Vocational Instructors
to take those particular subjects.
4. Among other subjects, one was Computer Science, as
an example. It was not in the main stream of school education prior
to introduction of the Higher Secondary Pattern. Vocational
Instructors were not absorbed as Teachers in the initial period.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9196 of 2017
However, they discharged the teaching work for higher secondary
schools. There was also a concept of Single Part Time Vocational
Teacher and Double Part Time Vocational Teacher. Then there was
an issue of equalizing both of them. Finally, there was an issue of
regularizing the Vocational Teachers and bringing them into the
main streamline as teachers of the school.
5. The petitioner herein, as seen from the above, was also
appointed as Part Time Vocational Instructor in Accountancy and
Auditing. The said subject was introduced only for the Higher
Secondary, the plus two course. The teachers, who took the normal
classes were not qualified to take that particular subject at the
higher secondary level.
6. The petitioner, therefore, taught students in the higher
secondary level at Nidamangalam Aided Higher Secondary School,
Needamangalam, Thiruvarur District. He was termed as Single Part
Time Vocational Instructor. Subsequently, as seen, his services
were regularized with effect from 01.04.1990. Thereafter, he was
also granted Selection Grade scale of pay again in the post of
Vocational Instructor by proceedings dated _.12.2008 with effect
from 01.04.2000 onwards. His pay was fixed in the scale of pay of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9196 of 2017
Rs.6500 – 10500, which was equal to the earlier Selection Grade
scale of pay for B.T. Assistant Teachers.
7. Thereafter, Rules were framed for Vocational Instructors
and in this regard a Government Order was passed in
G.O.(Ms).No.6 dated 04.01.2000. Yet another Government Order
was passed in G.O.(Ms).No.234 dated 01.06.2009, wherein, a
revised pay of scale was introduced in accordance with the
recommendations of the Official Pay Committee constituted by the
State Government. It could also be termed as a One Man Pay
Revision Committee to examine the fixation of pay. The pay band
for the post of B.T. Assistant was Rs. 9300 – 34800 + 4400 GP. The
concept of Grade Pay came to be introduced by G.O.(Ms)No.234
dated 01.06.2009. It was also stated that this particular pay band
was also applicable to Vocational Instructors like the petitioner
herein.
8. But specific pay was not fixed for Selection Grade /
Special Grade scale of pay. This led to an anomaly and the District
Educational Officer came to recognize the pay of some of them and
not for all. A proposal was sent by the Headmasters of the schools.
Some of them were accepted and some were rejected. Thereafter
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9196 of 2017
Selection / Special Grade of scales of pay was finally fixed with
effect from 01.01.2006 by letter dated 08.11.2010. This was,
however, fixed only notionally with effect from 01.01.2006 and
monetary benefits were granted from 01.01.2011. The scale of pay
band were re-fixed in the pay band of Rs.9300 – 34000 + 4600 GP,
with Rs.15600 – 39100 + 5400 GP. This was for Selection Grade of
scale of pay. Thus, seeking interference of those two orders, the
present writ petition has been filed.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that this Court
had an occasion earlier to consider the issue in W.P.No.17006 of
2017 dated 27.07.2023 and had allowed that writ petition. It is his
say that, the same would enure to the benefit of the petitioner
herein as well and prays for appropriate orders.
10. On the other hand, learned Additional Government
Pleader filed counter affidavit and contested the case. According to
him, the orders do not require interference. It was stated that the
petitioner had been granted not only relief in pay structure, but also
in seniority and in regularisation of the post. It was therefore urged
that the writ petition should be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9196 of 2017
11. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
12. Since the issue raised is covered by a decision of this
Court in W.P.No.17006 of 2017, the same will apply to this case.
The order dated 27.07.2023 made in W.P.No.17006 of 2017 reads
as under:-
“Writ petition had been filed in the nature
of a certiorarified mandamus calling for the
records of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 relating
to the proceedings dated 15.05.2017 and
07.04.2017 respectively and quash the same
and issue a direction to the said respondents to
fix Selection Grade Scale of Pay of the
petitioner in the post of Vocational Instructor at
Rs.15600 - 39000 + 5400 GP with notional
effect from 01.01.2006 and monetary benefits
from 01.11.2011.
2. The petitioner was originally
appointed as Part Time Vocational Instructor in
Commerce at Government Higher Secondary
School, Muthupet, Thanjavur on 01.12.1980 on
consolidated pay. He was then appointed on
regular time scale of pay as Vocational
Instructor with effect from 23.09.1994 in the
time scale of pay of Rs.1400 – 2600. This was
the scale of pay for the post of B.T. Assistant.
He was absorbed by order dated 29.12.1994 of
the Chief Educational Officer, Nagapattinam.
The services in the post of Vocational Instructor
was regularized from 01.04.1990 by
proceedings of the Joint Director of School
Education dated 10.07.2007. The scale of pay
was given in accordance with the
recommendation of the V pay commission with
effect from 01.06.1988.
3. It must be pointed out that the
Government had brought in a policy change by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9196 of 2017
introducing 10 + 2 course in schools abolishing
11 + Pre University Course which was in effect
earlier. When the Higher Secondary Course or
Plus Two was introduced, several new subjects
were also introduced. This necessitated
appointment of instructors, who were called
Vocational Instructors to take those particular
subjects.
4. Among other subjects, one was
Computer Science, as an example. It was not in
the main stream of school education prior to
introduction of the Higher Secondary Pattern.
Vocational Instructors were not absorbed as
Teachers in the initial period. However, they
discharged the teaching work for higher
secondary schools. There was also a concept of
Single Part Time Vocational Teacher and Double
Part Time Vocational Teacher. Then there was
an issue of equalizing both of them. Finally,
there was an issue of regularizing the
Vocational Teachers and bringing them into the
main streamline as teachers of the school.
5. The petitioner herein, as seen from
the above, was also appointed as Part Time
Vocational Instructor in Commerce. Commerce
as a subject was introduced only for the Higher
Secondary, the plus two course. The teachers,
who took the normal classes were not qualified
to take that particular subject at the higher
secondary level.
6. The petitioner, therefore, taught
students in the higher secondary level at
Government Higher Secondary School at
Muthupettai Taluk, Thanjavur. He was termed
as Single Part Time Vocational Instructor.
Subsequently, as seen, his services were
regularized with effect from 01.04.1990.
Thereafter, he was also granted Selection
Grade scale of pay again in the post of
Vocational Instructor by proceedings dated
10.07.2008 with effect from 01.04.2000
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9196 of 2017
onwards. His pay was fixed in the scale of pay
of Rs.6000 – 10500, which was equal to the
earlier Selection Grade scale of pay for B.T.
Assistant Teachers.
7. Thereafter, Rules were framed for
Vocational Instructors and in this regard a
Government Order was passed in
G.O.(Ms).No.6 dated 04.01.2000. Yet another
Government Order was passed in
G.O.(Ms).No.234 dated 01.06.2009, wherein, a
revised pay of scale was introduced in
accordance with the recommendations of the
Official Pay Committee constituted by the State
Government. It could also be termed as a One
Man Pay Revision Committee to examine the
fixation of pay. The pay band for the post of
B.T. Assistant was Rs. 9300 – 34800 with 4400
GP. The concept of Grade Pay came to be
introduced by G.O.(Ms)No.234 dated
01.06.2009. It was also stated that this
particular pay band was also applicable to
Vocational Instructors like the petitioner herein.
8. But specific pay was not fixed for
Selection Grade / Special Grade scale of pay.
This led to an anomaly and the District
Educational Officer came to recognize the pay
of some of them and not for all. A proposal was
sent by the Headmasters of the schools. Some
of them were accepted and some were
rejected. Thereafter Selection / Special Grade
of scales of pay was finally fixed with effect
from 01.01.2006 by letter dated 08.11.2010.
This was, however, fixed only notionally with
effect from 01.01.2006 and monetary benefits
were granted from 01.01.2011. The scale of
pay band were re-fixed in the pay band of
Rs.9300 – 34000 + 4600 GP, with Rs.15600 –
39100 + 5400 GP. This was for Selection Grade
of scale of pay.
9. Since there was no effective
uniform application, the sixth respondent, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9196 of 2017
office of the Accountant General, came to re-
examine the pay scales which had been fixed,
particularly for Vocational Instructors and
started issuing notices or letters of proceedings
seeking recovery of pay claiming that the pay
scale had been wrongly determined. The
petitioner is one such who has been issued with
such notice. The writ petition has been filed
seeking interference with those notices which
primarily sought recovery of pay which,
according to the sixth respondent, were paid
over and above the scale of pay, which should
have been paid to the petitioner herein.
10. Let me now refer to the counter
affidavit filed by the sixth respondent. After
examining the entire aspect, the sixth
respondent, however, had placed reliance on
the G.O.(Ms) No.306 dated 12.09.2018. By that
particular G.O., the Government had allowed
scale of pay band Rs. 15600 – 39100 + 5400
GP to Selection Grade Vocational Instructors
with effect from 01.01.2006 but with monetary
benefits from 01.04.2013. This must be
compared with the earlier letter of the State
Government, which had granted monetary
benefits from 01.01.2011 for the same scale of
pay band.
11. The notional benefits were given
from 01.01.2006 but by the letter of the State
Government dated 08.11.2010, monetary
benefits were extended from 01.01.2011.
Subsequently, by G.O.(Ms).No.306 dated
12.09.2018, the monetary benefits were
extended only from 01.04.2013. The difference
of pay which was paid to the petitioner, will
now have to be addressed by this Court.
12. In the counter affidavit, recognizing
the revision of pay and grant of monetary
benefits from 01.04.2013, it had been stated as
follows:-
“Since, the Government has allowed scale of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9196 of 2017
pay of Rs.15600 – 39100 – 5400 Grade Pay to
the selection grade Vocational Instructors pay
with effect from 01.01.2006 and monetary
benefit from 01.04.2013 in G.O.306 dated
12.09.2018, this respondent has addressed the
Departmental officer in letter dated 15.09.2020
to forward the pension proposal in respect of
the petitioner duly refixing his pay in terms of
the G.O.306 dated 12.09.2018 for revision of
his pension under the aforesaid G.O.”
13. Once this stand has been taken by
the fifth respondent, the recovery made in the
notices impugned from 01.11.2011 is saved at
least from 01.04.2013, wherein, the revision of
pay will have to be now proposed by the head
of the institution or Headmaster / Headmistress
of the school and thereafter, there will be
additions and subtractions.
14. On the side of the respondent nos.
1 to 4, however, a counter affidavit had been
filed, which counter affidavit is dated
10.10.2017. It must be kept in mind that
G.O.(Ms).No.306 had been passed on
12.09.2018 subsequent to the filing of this
particular counter affidavit. Therefore, the
averments made in the counter affidavit is with
respect to a situation prior to the passing of
G.O.(Ms)No.306 dated 12.09.2018. At any rate,
in the said counter, in paragraph nos. 6 and 8,
it had been averred as follows:-
“6. With regard to the averments contained in
para no.5 of the affidavit, it is submitted that
initially the scale of pay for B.T. Assistant was
fixed in the pay band of 9300 – 34800 with
Grade Pay of Rs.4400/- but the said pay band
is not applicable to the writ petitioner. Further
the Government fixed the Selection Grade and
Special Grade pay in the G.O.Ms.No.234 dated
01.06.2009 and provided 3% increase in basic
pay at Selection / Special Grade of pay. Further
the Grade pay of the B.T. Assistant was fixed
from Rs.4400/- to 4600/- vide G.O.Ms.No.23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9196 of 2017
dated 12.01.2011 and in that it was stated that
the same is to be fixed notionally from
01.01.2006 and monetary benefits with effect
from 01.11.2011. But in the Government
orders cited above no where it is mentioned
about the Vocational Instructors. By this the
writ petitioner has misconstrued the
Government Orders. With regard to the
averments contained in para no.6 of the
affidavit, it is submitted that the Government
vide its letter dated 08.11.2010 granted
Selection / Special Grade scales of pay with
effect from 01.01.2006 notionally and monetary
benefits from 01.01.2011 and as averred by the
Writ petitioner the 4600/- Grade Pay was
granted and 5400/- is granted to other post
and not for the Vocational Instructor post. But
it was specifically mentioned that Selection
/Special Grade scale of pay indicated will take
notional effect from 01.01.2006 with monetary
benefit from 01.01.2011 for those employees
who were awarded Selection Grade / Special
Grade prior to 01.01.2006 and the same was
restricted to Selection Grade Pay of First
Promotion i.e., Rs.4600/- and not 5400/- for
Vocational Instructor post.
7. ......
8. With regard to the averments contained in
Para no.8 of the affidavit, it is submitted that
the writ petitioner is admitting the fact that his
pay was fixed by the Headmaster of the School
itself is wrong. Here the pay fixing authority is
the Chief Educational Officer of the concerned
district. Further he has averred that the
vocational instructor post has no promotional
avenue, it is said averment is true how the writ
petitioner has got the promotion of Post
Graduate Assistant. Here the writ petitioner is
totally contrary to the averments made by him.
But in the year 2008 the vide G.O.Ms.185 dated
25.08.2008 the promotional avenue was
opened to the writ petitioner. Hence the Grade
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9196 of 2017
Pay of Rs.5400/- is not applicable to the writ
petitioner. It is further submitted that for those
employees who were awarded Selection Grade
/ Special Grade prior to 01.01.2006 and the
same was restricted to Selection Grade Pay of
First Promotion i.e. Rs.4600/- and not 5400/-
for Vocational Instructor post was admitted by
the writ petitioner and now contending that the
restriction is not applicable to him but no
evidence to this effect was produced by the writ
petitioner. He himself is attesting that he was
drawing correct pay but the same was not
supported with any material evidence by the
writ petitioner.”
15. It had been therefore insisted by
learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 4 that the
grade pay of Rs.5400/- was not applicable to
the writ petitioner. It was stated that for those
employees who were awarded Selection Grade
/ Special Grade prior to 01.01.2006, it was
restricted to Selection Grade Pay of First
Promotion, namely, Rs. 4600 and not Rs.
5400. As pointed out, this stand has now
evaporated consequent to the introduction of
G.O.(Ms).No.306 and the specific stand of the
fifth respondent that a proposal to revise the
pay will have to be given extending monetary
benefits from 01.04.2013 onwards.
16. The issue therefore now crystallizes
to the recovery for the period between
01.01.2011 and 31.03.2013. It must be kept in
mind that, the said pay to the petitioner herein
was not on the basis of any representation
made by the petitioner but consequent to a
letter of the Government dated 08.11.2010
which granted monetary benefits from
01.01.2011 and fixed the pay notionally from
01.01.2006. This particular aspect had come to
the consideration of the Courts and learned
counsel for the petitioner had produced before
this Court earlier judgments on this very
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9196 of 2017
aspect:-
16.1 In N.Rajendran and another v the
Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its
Secretary and Others [W.P.Nos.11999 & 12000
of 2013 dated 23.10.2019], this Court held as
follows:-
“3.However, by an order dated 28.03.2013, the
pay was re-fixed and was revised to a lower
level pay of Rs.9300/- with grade pay of
Rs.4600/-. There was an order also to recover
the excess amount paid to the petitioners from
01.01.2011. However, the Government passed
G.O.Ms.No.306 Finance (CMPS) Department
dated 12.09.2018, increasing the pay of the
petitioners from 4600 to 5400 from
01.04.2013. The petitioners are therefore now
faced with the recovery of excess amount
which was paid to them from 01.01.2011 to
31.03.2013. It is well settled that if excess
payment is made by the employer by applying
wrong principle for calculating the
pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular
interpretation of rule/order, which is
subsequently found to be erroneous, then,
when such employees are asked to pay the
excess amount they would be faced with
hardship, when the amount is sought to be
recovered from them and if there was no
misrepresentation or fraud by the employee in
grant of excess amount of pay, and it should
not be recovered. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Syd Abdul and Other .Vs. State of Bihar
and Others reported in (2009) 3 SCCC 475,
as observed as under:
“?57. This Court, in a catena of decisions,
has granted relief against recovery of excess
payment of emoluments/allowances if (a) the
excess amount was not paid on account of any
misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the
employee and (b) if such excess payment was
made by the employer by applying a wrong
principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9196 of 2017
the basis of a particular interpretation of
rule/order, which is subsequently found to be
erroneous.
58.The relief against recovery is granted
by courts not because of any right in the
employees, but in equity, exercising judicial
discretion to relieve the employees from the
hardship that will be caused if recovery is
ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that
the employee had knowledge that the payment
received was in excess of what was due or
wrongly paid, or in cases where the error is
detected or corrected within a short time of
wrong payment, the matter being in the realm
of judicial discretion, courts may, on the facts
and circumstances of any particular case, order
for recovery of the amount paid in excess. See
Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana, Shyam Babu
Verma vs. Union of India, Union of India vs. M.
Bhaskar, V. Gangaram vs. Director, Col. B.J.
Akkara [Retd.] v. Government of India,
Purshottam Lal Das v. State of Bihar, Punjab
National Bank v. Manjeet Singh & and Bihar
SEB v. Bijay Bhadur.”
4.In view of the above, the order for
recovering the excess amount from the pay of
the petitioner from 01.01.2011 to 31.03.2013
stands set aside. The Writ Petitions are
disposed of on the above mentioned
terms. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.”
16.2 In V.Sundararajan and another v
the Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its
Secretary, Finance (Pay Cell) Department and
others [W.P.Nos. 12787 & 12788 of 2013 dated
05.03.2020], this Court held as follows:-
“6. The relevant portion of the order of this
court made in W.P.Nos.11999 and 12000 of
2013 dated 25.10.2019 reads as follows:-
“4. In view of the above, the order for
recovering the excess amount from the pay of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9196 of 2017
the petitioner from 01.01.2011 to 31.03.2013
stands set aside. The writ petitions are disposed
of on the above mentioned terms.”
7. Considering the fact that scale of pay
for the Vocational Instructors was fixed at
Rs.15600 - 39100 with grade pay of Rs.5400/-
for no fault of the petitioners, but, however, the
Government had subsequently recognized the
anomaly and re fixed the grade pay and also on
considering the fact that when the order for
recovery was challenged by the similarly placed
persons, this court by order dated 25.10.2019
set aside the order of recovery of excess
amount paid, this court is inclined to set aside
the order of recovery in respect of the
petitioners also.
In the result, both writ petitions are
allowed and the orders impugned in the writ
petitions directing the recovery of the excess
amount from the pay of the petitioners from
01.01.2011 to 31.03.2013 are set aside.
Amounts, if any, already recovered from the
petitioners are directed to be refunded to them
within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Consequently, connected MPs are closed.”
16.3 In V.Krishnan v The Government of
Tamilnadu Rep. By its Secretary, Finance (Pay
Cell) Department and others [W.P.No.2950 of
2014 etc batch dated 03.02.2020], this Court
held as follows:-
“8.It is seen from the GO.Ms.No.306, Finance
(CMRC) department, dated 12.09.2018 that the
grievance of the Petitioners has been met out
positively by the Respondent. Therefore,
impugned GO.Ms.No.263 Finance (Pay Cell)
Department, dated 22.7.2013 and the
consequential recovery proceedings cannot be
given effect to. In such view of the matter, no
further adjudication is required in all these Writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9196 of 2017
Petitions. The submissions of the learned
Government Advocate for the State and the
GO.Ms.No.306, Finance (CMRC) department,
dated 12.09.2018 are recorded.
9.With the above observations, these Writ
Petitions are disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, the connected MPs are closed.”
16.4 In Government of Tamil Nadu Rep
by its Secretary, Finance (Pay Cell) Department
and others v N.Rajendran [W.A.No.2168 of
2021 dated 02.09.2021], the Division Bench of
this Court, held as follows:-
“6. The sum and substance of the case on hand
is that the pay scale of the Respondent has
been erroneously fixed, thereby wrong amount
was paid to the employee. Thereafter, the
same was ordered to be recovered and
questioning the same, the Writ Petition in
W.P.No.11999 of 2013 was filed, in which the
learned Single Judge held that in the absence of
any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of
the employee, the excess amount granted
should not be recovered.
7. Though the contention of the learned
Government Advocate, appears to be sound at
the first blush, a cursory look at the order dated
28/8/2003 shows that admittedly, it is a non
speaking order, with regard to wrong fixation of
pay to the vocational teachers. In the
proceedings of the Sixth Respondent dated
28.03.2013, it has been simply stated that the
pay scale, which is revised as 15600-39100+
5400 is hereby cancelled and they have decided
to refix the pay scale of 9300-34800+4600. .
Though the Government is entitled to recover
the amount based on the guidelines pronounced
by the Apex Court, no speaking order has been
passed with respect to recovery of the salary
fixed on 14.10.2011 in the Impugned Order
dated 28.03.2000. Therefore, in the absence of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9196 of 2017
speaking order being passsed, we are of the
view that the learned Judge was right in holding
that there is no fraud or misappropriation on
the part of the employee and that, the excess
amount paid cannot be recovered.”
17. The ratio laid down in the
aforementioned judgments are directly
applicable to the facts of this case. It had been
very categorically held that ordering of
recovery of excess amount from the petitioners
therein from 01.01.2011 to 31.03.2013 cannot
withstand the scrutiny of the Court and,
therefore, has to be set aside.
18. In view of the consistent dictum laid
down by the learned Single Judges and also by
the Division Bench of this Court, it is only
obligatory on the part of this Court to follow the
same dictum.
19. The counter affidavit of the sixth
respondent protects the recovery from
01.04.2013 after a proposal is sent by the
Headmaster / fifth respondent and the ratio laid
above protects recovery between 01.01.2011
and 31.03.2013 also.
20. In view of the same, the writ
petition stands allowed. No costs. Connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed. A direction
is issued to the fifth respondent to propose the
revision of pay as directed by the sixth
respondent within twelve weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter
necessary proceedings must be issued by the
respondents within a period of four weeks from
that date. The notice for recovery from
01.11.2011 onwards has been set aside by this
Court and, therefore, there cannot be any
recovery against the petitioner.
13. In view of the above, this writ petition stands allowed. A
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9196 of 2017
direction is issued to the concerned Headmaster of the school to
propose the revision of pay within a period of twelve weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter necessary
proceedings must be issued by the respondents within a period of
four weeks from that date. The notice for recovery from 01.04.2013
onwards has been set aside by this Court, and, therefore, there
cannot be any recovery against the petitioner. No costs. Connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
22.08.2023
Index:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
ssm
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Finance (CMPC) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu, School Education Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
3.The Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
4.The Joint Director of School Education (Vocational),
Thiruvarur, Thiruvarur District.
5.The Chief Educational Officer, Thiruvarur, Thiruvarur District.
6.The District Educational Officer,
Thiruvarur, Thiruvarur District.
7.The Headmaster
Nidamangalam Aided Higher Secondary School,
Nidamangalam, Thiruvarur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9196 of 2017
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
ssm
W.P.No.9196 of 2017
22.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
