Madras High Court
R.Ravichandran vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 22 December, 2023
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
W.A.Nos.114 & 116 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.12.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.A.Nos.114 and 116 of 2020
and C.M.P.Nos.1655 & 1657 of 2020
and C.M.P.Nos.11458 and 11671 of 2022
R.Ravichandran ... Appellant in W.A.No.114/2020
K.N.Murugan ... Appellant in
W.A.No.116/2020
-Vs-
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Industries Department, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Sugar
Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035.
3.The Special Officer
Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd,m
Mohanur-637 015. ... Respondents in both
the appeals
Prayer : Writ Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order in
W.P.No.9987 & 9988 of 2010 dated 18.09.2019.
In Both W.As.
For Appellants : Mr.V.Govardhanan
for M/s.Row and Reddy
For Respondents : Mr.Vadivelu Dheenadayalan
Addl.Govt Pleader for RR1 and 2
Mr.R.Bala Ramesh - for R3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.A.Nos.114 & 116 of 2020
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)
Since the issue raised in both the appeals is one and the same, with the
consent of the learned counsel for both sides, the writ appeals were taken together,
heard and disposed of with this common judgment.
2. The respective writ appellants were initially appointed as Technical
Assistant and subsequently their services were regularized by the proceedings
issued by the Joint Commissioner of Sugar in the Supervisory cadre and the
appellants were re-designated originally as Junior Engineer and subsequently as
Assistant Engineer.
3. At that time, in the year 1984 at the instance of the first respondent, the
second respondent had made a common cadre service of all the employees.
Therefore, it became necessitated for re-designation and therefore re-designation
has been made.
4. However subsequently in the year 1997, once again the Government took
a policy decision to reverse the common cadre designation given to those employees
that was started to be implemented and therefore, the designation already given by
virtue of the common cadre system was reviewed. Therefore, in view of the
common cadre was abolished, because of the re-designation it became inevitable to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.114 & 116 of 2020
alter the pay structure.
5. Once the pay structure was altered, during the re-designation period after
the common cadre system was introduced, these appellants could have received
some additional pay and such additional pay was considered to be excess pay and
therefore the respondents sought to recover that amount.
6. Only at that juncture, the employees / appellants filed the writ petitions.
When those writ petitions came up for hearing before the learned Judge, it was
brought to the notice of the writ court that already similar issue had been concluded
by the orders of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1979 and 1980 of 2011
by order dated 08.12.2011. However the matter was taken upto the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in C.A.Nos.9206 and 9207 etc., of 2013, where the Ho'ble Supreme
Court having confirmed the decision taken by the High Court, took a lenient view
with regard to the recovery of pay that has been made to those employees and to
that extent the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the following order:
"We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute
that the appellant was not responsible for the alleged mistake committed
by the concerned authority in re-designating him as Assistant Engineer
(Electrical) and fixing his pay in the scale prescribed for that post. This
being the position, there was absolutely no justification to order recovery
of the amount paid to the appellant in the pay scale prescribed for the post
which he was holding at the relevant time."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.114 & 116 of 2020
7. Therefore, with regard to the recovery of the alleged excess pay to these
kind of employees since the Hon'ble Supreme Court has intervened and passed the
aforesaid order, the learned single Judge, following the very same order, has
disposed the writ petitions in terms of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. Aggrieved over the same, the present appeals have been directed.
8. Heard Mr.V.Govardhanan for M/s.Row and Reddy learned counsel
appearing for the appellants and Mr.Vadivelu Dheenadayalan, learned Additional
Government Pleader appearing for the first and second respondents and Mr.Bala
Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.
9. Insofar as the said issue having been concluded by the orders of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court as stated supra, there could be no dispute that the issue has
been concluded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is binding. Therefore, we are
also inclined to accept the same view taken by the learned single Judge, who passed
the impugned order.
10. Accordingly, these appeals are disposed in terms of the order passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said Civil Appeals. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.114 & 116 of 2020
11. We make it clear that this judgment will not preclude the appellants from
making any further representation to seek for further remedy, if it is available to
them in the manner known to law.
(R.S.K.,J.) (G.A.M.,J.)
22.12.2023
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
KST
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Industries Department, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Sugar
Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035.
3.The Special Officer
Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd,m
Mohanur-637 015.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.114 & 116 of 2020
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
KST
W.A.Nos. 114 and 116 of 2020
22.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
