Madras High Court
T.Venkataramanan vs Assistant Director on 22 September, 2023
W.P No.21426 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.09.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.No.21426 of 2019
And
W.M.P.Nos. 20627 & 31786 of 2019
T.Venkataramanan ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. Assistant Director
Internal Audit Department
Tamilnadu Government Department Statutory Audit Department
Bangaru Amman Thottam
Kanchipuram – 631 501.
2. Directorate of Technical Education
Rep. by its Director
Guindy, Chennai – 600 025.
3. Backthavatsalam Polytechnic College
Rep. by its Principal
Karaipettai, Kanchipuram – 631 552. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records from
Page 1 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.21426 of 2019
the third respondent relating to the proceedings dated 27.06.2019 bearing
reference Na.Ka.No. 801/A1/2019 unilaterally reducing petitioners Grade
Pay from Rs.4300 to Rs.2800 in the pay band of 5200-20200 retrospectively
and on top of it ordering recovery of Rs.2,77,147/- quash the same as
illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and to consequently direct the
respondents 1 to 3 not to interfere or disturb the petitioners pay in the pay
band of Rs.9300-34800 plus grade pay of Rs.4300/-.
***
For Petitioner : Mr. K.Srinivasa Murthy
For RR 1 & 2 : Mr. V.Arun
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.S.Ravi Kumar
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Certiorarified
Mandamus seeking records of the third respondent / Backthavatsalam
Polytechnic College, represented by its Principal, Karaipettai,
Kanchipuram, relating to proceedings dated 27.06.2019 bearing reference
Na.Ka.No. 801/A1/2019, reducing the Grade Pay of the petitioner from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.21426 of 2019
Rs.4300 to Rs.2800 in the pay band of 5200-20200 retrospectively and
directing recovery of a sum of Rs.2,77,147/-. The petitioner seeks to quash
the aforementioned proceedings and a direction against the first to third
respondents not to interfere or disturb the pay of the petitioner in the pay
band of Rs.9300-34800 plus grade pay of Rs.4300/-.
2. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it had been
stated that the petitioner had been initially appointed as Junior Assistant on
26.08.1987 in the third respondent college which is an Aided Polytechnic
College / Backthavatsalam Polytechnic College, represented by its
Principal, Karaipettai, Kanchipuram. His service had been approved by the
second respondent / Directorate of Technical Education with effect from
01.04.1990. The petitioner moved to Selection Grade in the Junior Assistant
cadre on 01.04.2000. He then moved to Special Grade in the same cadre of
Junior Assistant with effect from 01.04.2010. Thereafter he had been
promoted as Assistant with effect from 17.12.2012. He retired on attaining
the age of superannuation as Assistant on 31.10.2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.21426 of 2019
3. According to the petitioner, since he did not get any promotion
when he was working as Junior Assistant in the ordinary grade, he was
entitled for the pay in the post of Assistant which is the next higher post. He
in his affidavit, therefore stated, that his basic pay may be fixed at Rs.4100
in the pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000. It had been further stated that on
01.06.2009, the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No. 234, Finance (Pay
Cell) Department revising according to the petitioner, the pay with effect
from 01.01.2006 as recommended by the 6th Pay Commission. It had been
stated that the corresponding pay for the pre-revised scale of Rs.4000-100-
6000 was Rs.5200-20200+Grade Pay of Rs.2400.
4. It had been further stated in the affidavit that a One Man
Commission was then appointed and the recommendation of the said
Commission was accepted by the Government and a letter in Letter No.
63305 dated 12.11.2010 had been issued revising the scales of pay
notionally with effect from 01.01.2006 and with the monetary benefit from
01.08.2010. The petitioner when he had moved to Special Grade with effect
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.21426 of 2019
from 01.04.2010, claimed that he should have been paid the Selection Grade
pay in the post of Assistant and therefore claims that his basic pay must be
revised to Rs.11,260/- in the scale of Rs.5200-20200+Grade Pay of
Rs.2400/-. It had been further stated by the petitioner that by G.O.Ms.No.
45 dated 10.02.2011, the Grade Pay of ordinary scale pay in the post of
Assistant was revised from Rs.2400 to Rs.2800 with effect from
01.01.2006 notionally and with monetary benefit with effect from
01.02.2011. The petitioner thereafter placed reliance in his affidavit on
G.O.Ms.No. 237 dated 22.07.2013, according to which, a candidate, who
was in Special Grade was entitled to further 3% + 3% increment, which the
petitioner claims in his affidavit that since he moved to Selection Grade
prior to 01.01.2006.
5. The third respondent by a letter dated 17.04.2014 had sought
clarification from the second respondent to fix the pay of the petitioner in
the pay band of 9300-34800 + Grade Pay Rs.4300/-. The second
respondent by a letter dated 15.07.2015 had stated that the third respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.21426 of 2019
may proceed with the matter in accordance with the Government Orders and
the guidelines issued. It had therefore been contended by the petitioner that
the third respondent, based on the Government Orders and the Guidelines in
force had fixed the pay scale of the petitioner in the pay band of 9300-
34800 + Grade Pay Rs.4300/- notionally with effect from 01.04.2006 and
with monetary benefit from 17.12.2012 on which date he had been
appointed as Assistant.
6. It had been further stated in the affidavit that without
considering all the aforementioned materials on record, the first respondent,
the Assistant Director, Internal Audit Department, Tamilnadu Government
Department Statutory Audit Department, Kanchipuram, by a letter dated
19.04.2018 raised objections with respect to the pay scale of the petitioner
and invited the third respondent to issue comments within a period two
months. The third respondent sent a detailed reply to the objections raised.
The petitioner claims that a further reply was not issued by the first
respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.21426 of 2019
7. The petitioner, on the date of filing of the Writ Petition stated
that he has been drawing pay in the pay band of Rs.9300-34800 + Grade
Pay Rs.4300/- every month and for good measure, he had also stated that he
had spent that money also. It had been further stated in the affidavit that the
third respondent, by proceedings dated 27.06.2019 had reduced the pay of
the petitioner from Rs.9300-34800 + Grade Pay Rs.4300/- to Rs.5200-
20200+2800 with effect from 01.01.2006 notionally and with monetary
benefit from 17.12.2012 and directed recovery of Rs.2,77,147/- from the
salary payable to the petitioner from July 2019. Questioning such notice
issued by the third respondent, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
8. A counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the first
respondent. In the said counter affidavit, it had been stated that the said
proceedings issued by the third respondent dated 27.06.2019, bearing
Na.Ka.No. 801/A1/2019 reducing the Grade Pay from Rs.4300/- to
Rs.2800/- in the pay band of Rs.5200-20200 and directing recovery of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.21426 of 2019
rs.2,77,147/- was based on the objections of the Audit raised in Para No.
36/2015-2017 relating to the third respondent College. It was contended
that such revision of pay and recovery was in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.
234, Finance (Pay Cell), dated 01.06.2009 and the Government Letter No.
63305/ Pay Cell / 2010-1, dated 08.11.2010 and G.O.Ms.No. 45, Finance
(Pay Cell) Department dated 10.2.2011. It had been further stated that in the
Government Letter dated 08.11.2010, guidelines had been issued for
fixation of pay in the revised selection grade / special grade post. It had
been further stated that the Heads of Department / pay fixation authorities
were directed to refix the pay of the employees and an annexure was also
given according to which the pay should refixed.
9. It is the contention of the respondents that in the Selection
Grade, the petitioner was drawing salary in the pay scale Rs.5200-
20200+2400 and on movement to the Special Grade, his salary was
Rs.5200-20200+2800. It had been stated that the reduction of the Grade
Pay of Rs.4300/- to Rs.2800/- with respect to the petitioner was in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.21426 of 2019
accordance with the directions in G.O.Ms.No. 45, Finance (Pay Cell) dated
10.2.2011 wherein it had been stated that the Grade Pay fixed for by the
Government by the post of Assistant is only 2800/- and not Rs.4300/-.
However, in the case of the petitioner, the Grade pay had been fixed at
Rs.4300/- and it had been stated that in consonance with the same, the basic
pay had also been increased to Rs.9300/-. It had therefore been contended
that such refixation of the pay of the petitioner was in violation of the rules
and regulations.
10. In the counter affidavit, the correct fixation of the pay of the
petitioner was also given and it had been stated that as on 01.01.2006, the
petitioner had been drawing Rs.9300-34800 +Grade Pay 4300, whereas it
should have been in the pay band of Rs.5200-20200 + Grade Pay 2800. It
had been stated that on correct fixation of pay, the third respondent had
arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner had been paid in excess to a sum
of Rs.2,77,147/- and therefore had directed recovery of the same from July
2019 onwards. It had therefore been stated that the Writ Petition should be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.21426 of 2019
dismissed. It must be also pointed out that at the time of admission of the
Writ Petition, stay had been granted of recovery and in the counter affidavit,
it had also sought that such stay should be vacated.
11. Thereafter, the respondents had thought it necessary to file an
additional counter affidavit. This was filed by the second respondent. In
the additional counter affidavit, quite apart from stating the facts about the
pay drawn by the petitioner herein, it had also been stated that the
petitioner, when he moved to the Selection Grade, had been posted as
Section Officer of the Establishment Section of the third respondent college
and had therefore access to the service files of not only the other employees
but more important of his own service file. It had been stated that he
continued to hold the said position even after being promoted as Assistant.
It had been stated that he had prepared a note to revise his pay from
Rs.5200-20200 + Grade Pay 2800 to Rs.9300-34800/- + Grade Pay 4300/-.
It had been further stated in the additional counter affidavit that the said pay
band, namely, Rs.9300-34800+ Grade Pay 4300/-, was pay which was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.21426 of 2019
determined for the post of Superintendent as per G.O.Ms.No. 234, Finance
(Pay Cell), Department dated 01.06.2009 as recommended by the 6th pay
Commission. It had been stated that the files with respect to revision of the
petitioner had been put up for final approval before the higher officials after
the petitioner had counter signed the same. It had been stated that after
obtaining approval, the recommendations of revised pay from Rs.5200-
20200+Grade Pay 2800/- to Rs.9300-34800+Grade Pay 4300/- was
forwarded to the office of the second respondent by a communication dated
17.04.2014. Thereafter, reminders were continuously sent on 17.06.2014,
28.08.2014 and 24.11.2014. It had been stated that the second respondent
had therefore directed the third respondent to fix the pay of the petitioner in
accordance with the rules and guidelines mentioned in the reference in its
letter dated 15.07.2015. It had been very specifically stated that none of
those guidelines permitted pay to be revised from Rs.5200-20200+Grade
Pay 2800/-, for the post of Assistant to the pay band of Rs.9300-
34800+Grade Pay 4300/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.21426 of 2019
12. It had been stated that the petitioner had very cleverly played
his role, and instead of revising the pay band from Rs.5200-20200+Grade
Pay 2800/- to Rs.9300-34800+Grade Pay 4300/- he had only put up a note
to revise the Grade Pay from Rs.2800/- to Rs.4300/- and according to the
same, the corresponding basic pay automatically was fixed at Rs.9300-
34800+Grade Pay 4300/-. It had therefore been stated that the petitioner
had prepared the file for claiming arrears of a sum of Rs.1,59,591/-
allegedly payable to him from 17.12.2012 till 31.07.2015.
13. It had been stated that in the Local Fund Audit of the years
2015-2016 and 2016-2017, it was found that there were discrepancies in the
revised pay of the petitioner which were contrary to the orders of the
Government and it was found that the petitioner, who was an Assistant had
received salary at the pay band of a Superintendent. Therefore, on
19.04.2018, explanation was sought and recovery of pay was also directed
to a sum of Rs.2,77,147/- as on 31.03.2017. However, the petitioner had
prepared a reply clarifying and justifying the revised scale of pay. It had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.21426 of 2019
been stated that however, the third respondent in accordance with the
directions of the second respondent had issued a letter dated 27.06.2019
directing recovery of Rs.2,77,147/- from the salary of the petitioner and also
to revise his pay from 01.07.2019 to the post of Assistant at Rs.5200-
20200/- + Grade Pay 2800/-. It had also been stated that the petitioner was
also receiving salary from that date till the date of his superannuation only
at Rs.5200-20200/- + Grade Pay 2800/-.
14. It had been very specifically stated in the additional counter
affidavit that the petitioner had played fraud by revising his grade from
2800/- to 4300/- equating that to a higher grade of Rs.9300-34800 + Grade
Pay 4300/-. It had been stated that he had a significant post in the
Establishment Section from and had been able to obtain the signature of the
third respondent which, according to the respondents was a fraudulent act of
the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.21426 of 2019
15. The petitioner had filed a reply affidavit to this additional counter
affidavit. In the reply affidavit, he had denied the allegations that he had
himself revised his pay since he was in the Establishment Section. It had
been stated that he was duty bound to handle the files of the said Section
including the service files and also to handle his own service file as well.
He stated that there was only one clerk / Assistant attached to Establishment
Section and that was himself. He also stated that merely because he was
handling his own file it would not mean that he should not make entries in
his service register.
16. He further stated that based on the instructions received
periodically, as per procedure, a note was put up to the Chairman and the
Chairman, after perusing the records and satisfied with the note had
approved the same. After approval, the revised pay was implemented in the
pay bill. He also stated that the Governing Council also ratified the said
approval. He also stated that a nominee of the second respondent was also a
participant in the Governing Council. He was stated that the procedure was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.21426 of 2019
strictly followed with respect to the revision of the pay for himself on the
basis of the One Man Commission guideline dated 08.11.2010 and the
Government Orders, particularly G.O.Ms.No. 234 dated 01.06.2009.
17. He stated that the second respondent had made baseless
allegations in the additional counter affidavit. He reiterated that he had
prepared the revised pay only on instructions of the Chairman, who had
granted approval and the Governing Council, which had ratified it. He
reiterated that his pay had been properly fixed and there was no necessity to
re-examine the entire issue. He therefore urged that the Writ Petition should
be allowed.
18. Heard arguments advanced by Mr. K.Srinivasa Murthy, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Arun, learned Additional Advocate
General assisted by Mr.S.Ravi Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents 1 & 2.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.21426 of 2019
19. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the Government had issued a letter on 08.11.2010 bearing No. 63305 / Pay
Cell/2010-1 with respect to the revision of scales of pay based on the
recommendations of the One Man Commission 2010 and issued
consequential orders. The learned counsel pointed out that for those who
had been granted Selection Grade / Special Grade prior to 01.01.2006 and
in whose cases the ordinary grade scale of pay had been revised on the
recommendations of the One Man Commission. The pay scale was fixed in
accordance with the annexure given to the said letter. An extract of the
annexure with respect to Row Nos. 7 & 8 would suffice:-
S.No. Ordinary Grade Rs. Selection Grade Special Grade
7. 5200-20200+2200 5200-20200+2600 5200-20200+2800
8. 5200-20200+2400 9300-34800+4200 9300-34800+4400
20. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
petitioner had moved on to Selection Grade prior to 01.01.2006, on
01.04.2000. It is therefore contended that the recommendations of the One
Man Commission would be directly applicable to the petitioner herein. It
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.21426 of 2019
had been stated that when he moved on Selection Grade, prior to
01.01.2006, and Special Grade subsequently on 01.04.2010, the pay band
should be fixed in the post of Assistant as Selection Grade Assistant,
namely, at Rs.9300-34800+ Grade Pay of 4200/-. This aspect is stressed by
the learned counsel on the basis of G.O.Ms.No. 45 dated 10.02.2011
wherein the Government had once again re-examined the entire issue and
had re-determined and re-fixed the pay scale, with respect to Junior
Assistant, who had receiving the pay scale of Rs.5200/- - 20200 + Grade
Pay 2400/-.
21. Coming back to the table which had been presented above, the
learned counsel therefore pointed out that the petitioner fell in line with
serial 8 which is the ordinary Grade Scale of pay Rs.5200-20200+ 2400.
According to the learned counsel, this was the revised scale of the petitioner
herein. It had therefore been contended that since he had been moved to the
Selection Grade prior to 01.01.2006, the revision as granted by the one man
Commission, and the accrued benefit should be extended to the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.21426 of 2019
herein. Therefore, his Selection Grade pay should be determined at
Rs.9300-34800+4200/- and the Special Grade pay at Rs.9300-34800+4400.
22. The learned counsel stated that it was only a natural step up of
the pay in accordance with the recommendations of the One Man
Commission, as approved by the Government. It had also been contended
that the petitioner was entitled to notional effect of the said revised pay
from 01.01.2006 and for monetary pay from 01.01.2010. It had been further
contended that since the petitioner had been promoted as Assistant on
17.12.2012, and since on that particular date, he was already in Selection
Grade in the Junior Assistant Cadre, he was therefore entitled to be
considered for Selection Grade pay in the Assistant Cadre and it was
claimed that he should start the pay in the Assistant cadre at Rs.9300/-
-34800 +4200/- and then increase it to Rs.9300/- -34800 +4400/-. The
learned counsel stated that these revisions were not at the whims and
fancies of the petitioner herein but in accordance with the letter of the
Government and the Government order mentioned above. It had been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.21426 of 2019
stated that therefore, the petitioner's pay had been rightly fixed and the
petitioner had drawn the benefit of that particular pay.
23. The learned counsel also strenuously denied the allegations of
fraud and stated that all the notes put up were signed by the
Principals/Chairman/ Governing Council Members and therefore stated that
the petitioner is innocent of all acts and had been drawing the pay as he was
entitled to. The learned counsel therefore urged that the Writ Petition
should be allowed and the impugned order should be set aside.
24. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
respondent Nos. 1 & 2 disputed the said contention. He pointed out that the
petitioner had joined as Junior Assistant on 01.04.1990 in the pay band of
Rs.3200-85-4900/-. It was further pointed out that he was granted Selection
Grade on 01.04.2000 and the pay band revised to Rs.4100-100-6000/-. It
was stated that the petitioner was thereafter granted Special Grade with
effect from 01.04.2010 and on that particular date, the revised pay was Rs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.21426 of 2019
5200-20200+2800/-. It was also contended that the petitioner was
promoted as Assistant on 17.12.2012. It was stated that the pay of the
Assistant must be equalised to the Special Grade pay of the Junior Assistant
which would be Rs. 5200-20200+2800/-.
25. It was asserted by the learned Additional Advocate General that
there was no post of Selection Grade or Special Grade in the post of
Assistant and that the next promotion was directly Superintendent and for
the Superintendent, the pay scale was Rs.9300-34800+ Grade pay 4200/-. It
was therefore contended that the petitioner had wrongly revised the pay for
himself taking advantage of the fact that since his pay according to him had
been revised to Rs. 5200-20200+2400/- which was the pay of ordinary
grade Junior Assistant when he moved to Selection Grade in the Junior
Assistant Cadre, he would get Rs.9300-34800+ Grade pay 4200/-. The
learned Additional Advocate General very specifically stated that such
revision was not correct.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.21426 of 2019
26. The allegations in the additional counter affidavit regarding fraud
alleged against the petitioner had also been reiterated by the learned
Additional Advocate General, who contended tht the revision were enable
only because the petitioner had access to the service register as he was
posted in the Establishment Section of the third respondent. It was also
pointed out that every letter which had been signed by the
Principal/Chairman/Governing Council Members, always had the initials of
the petitioner and it was stated that when that initial is found, it was an
indication that the contents were verified as correct by the said staff. It had
therefore been contended that the order directing recovery is maintainable
and the petitioner should pay back the amounts which he had wrongly
gained.
27. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced and
perused the records.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.21426 of 2019
28. The facts are simple. However, the facts have been complicated
unnecessarily.
29. The petitioner had joined the office of the third respondent on
26.08.1987 as Junior Assistant. His service had been approved on and from
01.04.1990. From the date of such approval, after a period of 10 years, the
petitioner would be entitled to Selection Grade pay. Till then he would be
drawing Ordinary Grade pay in the post of Junior Assistant. After a further
period of 10 years, the petitioner would be entitled to Special Grade of pay.
This is to compensate for the promotion which would may not have been
granted or if that avenue had not opened to the petitioner. To compenate for
the promotion not being granted, pay protection is granted by granting
Selection Grade and Special Grade in the post of Junior Assistant. The
petitioner was granted the benefit of Selection Grade with effect from
01.04.2000 and Special grade from 01.04.2010.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.21426 of 2019
30. Very significantly in the affidavit the petitioner had not
disclosed the date on which he was appointed as Junior Assistant and the
pay which he drew as Junior Assistant in the Ordinary grade and as
Selection Grade and as Special Grade. He had only stated that his pay scale
may be fixed at in the pay band of Rs.4000-100-6000/-. The actual pay
drawn particulars has also not been disclosed by the petitioner in his
affidavit.
31. The learned Additional Advocate General had placed on record
those details and a perusal of the same shows that as Junior Assistant in the
ordinary grade, the petitioner was drawing pay scale in the pay band 3200-
85-4900/-. When he moved on to Selection Grade, his pay had been revised
to 4000-100-6000/-.
32. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the
petitioner claimed that the pre-revised scale was Rs.4,000-100-6000/- and it
must be revised to Rs.5200-20200+ Grade Pay of 2400/-. But that pay
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.21426 of 2019
could be revised only when the petitioner was granted Special Grade of pay
the post of Assistant. That was granted on 01.04.2010 and on that date, his
revised pay in accordance with the Government Order and the letter of the
Government, his pay was revised to Rs.5200-20200+2800/-.
33. Two further facts have not been disclosed by the petitioner in
his affidavit. The first one is that the pay which he claim should have be
paid to him and which had been drawn, namely, in the pay band of 9300-
34800+Grade Pay 4300/- was actually the pay scale of the post of
Superintendent and not of Assistant. The petitioner however had arrived at
a conclusion based on the fact that in G.O.Ms.No. 45, according to him, the
pay scale of Junior Assistant in that ordinary grade was 5200-20200-2000/-
and was revised to 5200-20200+2400/-.
34. The contention of the petitioner is that in the post of Assistant,
Selection Grade, his pay should be revised to 9300-34800+Grade Pay
4200/- and in the Special Grade, his pay should be revised to 9300-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.21426 of 2019
34800+Grade Pay 4400/-. This contention is misconceived and is wrong. If
the petitioner is of the firm view that the anpve was the pay he was entitled
to, then with knowledge he had committed fraud. He cannot claim
innocence of the pay computation particularly as he was himself working in
the Establishment Section. He cannot claim ignorance of these facts and
claim indulgence of this Court.
35. The fundamental fact is that the pay of the Assistant is 5200-
20200+Grade Pay 2800/-. That is the only pay for the Assistant. There is no
conception of Selection Grade or Special Grade in the post of Assistant.
The pay of the Superintendent is 9300-34800+Grade Pay 4200/-. This
contention of the petitioner are not based on any Government order or on
any letter issued by the Government.
36. He should reconcile himself to accept salary for the post which
he held and not more.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.21426 of 2019
37. In the post of Assistant, there is a specific pay band for his
salary. The pay band cannot exceed 5200-20200+Grade Pay 2800/-. That is
the pay band for payment of Assistants.
38. The petitioner had however drawn pay of 9300-34800+4400 on
being promoted as Assistant. If he had so drawn and if he had drawn excess
salary, though he was in the Establishment Section, it would only indicate
that he had written down the demands raised deliberately with an intention
to make unlawful gain for himself. Nowhere can an Assistant draw a pay
scale of Rs.9300-34800+Grade Pay 4200/-.
39. It has to be in the pay band at Rs.5200-20200+Grade Pay
2800/-. That pay is the starting pay for the post of Assistant and that is only
pay which the Assistant can draw. After that, if he is promoted as
Superintendent, he can draw increased pay in the pay band 9300-34800+
corresponding Grade Pay.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.21426 of 2019
40. One further significant fact as seen from the records is that
when the petitioner put up notes for revision of his own pay, he had not
indicated that he is claiming the pay at 9300-34800 but had very cleverly
put up that the Grade Pay alone should be revised from Rs.2800 to
Rs.4300/-. If that grade pay is to exceed then correspondingly the basic
should be revised.
41. The further factor to be stated is that the initials of the
petitioner were in the letters signed by the Principals and the Chairman. In
any office, when an office note is put up, the staff who puts up the note
must signs his initials first. That is an indication that the particular staff had
examined the contents of the letter and had put it up only after verifying that
the contents are correct. It is thereafter that the officer signs.
42. The petitioner being in the Establishment Section should have
been and must have been aware of the procedure that of the initials must be
put up to indicate that the contents of the file. The signature by the Officer
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.21426 of 2019
is done on the basis of trust placed on the staff, who put the note for
approval. The petitioner had betrayed that trust placed on him.
43. In the reply affidavit, it had been stated that since the Chairman
and the Principal had signed those letters, it must be taken as the gospel
truth and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the pay of Rs.9300-
34800+Grade Pay. It is not so. They only sign since they placed trust in
him and since he was in the Establishment Section in the trust that the note
put up by him would be correct. Therefore, the very fact that his initials are
found would indicate that he had personally verified the contents of the
letters.
44. The petitioner had betrayed the trust placed in him by the
Principal/Chairman. Therefore, I would rejected the contentions of the
petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.21426 of 2019
45. It is seen that when the Writ Petition came for consideration on
27.08.2021 the petitioner had placed reliance to the Judgment of the
Supreme Court reported in 2015 4 SCC 344 [ State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq
Masih (White Washer). One very fundamental principle laid in that
particular judgment is that relief cannot be granted if the staff or officer,
who claims wrongful recovery was himself responsible for such revision of
pay and increased pay.
46. In this case, the principles laid down in the aforementioned
Judgment would not be applicable to the petitioner herein since he was
responsible for the revision of pay for himself and therefore, the reliance
placed on the said Judgment goes directly against his own conduct.
47. The stay of recovery is vacated and the respondents are directed
to recover the dues.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.21426 of 2019
48. It has been stated in the additional counter affidavit that when
the pay was refixed even when the petitioner was in service from
01.07.2019, he, without any whisper or protest, had received the salary of
5200-20200+Grade Pay 2800/- in the post of Assistant till his
superannuation on 31.10.2022. This one fact itself would show that the
petitioner had actually accepted that as his correct scale of pay and that he
had received an additional pay during the entire previous period and had, as
he, stated “spent the same”. Having benefited, it is time to pay back. The
respondents are directed to recover the same.
49. In view of these reasons, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
vsg 22.09.2023
Index:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.21426 of 2019
To
1. Assistant Director
Internal Audit Department
Tamilnadu Government Department Statutory Audit Department
Bangaru Amman Thottam
Kanchipuram – 631 501.
2. The Director
Directorate of Technical Education
Guindy, Chennai – 600 025.
3. The Principal
Backthavatsalam Polytechnic College
Karaipettai, Kanchipuram – 631 552.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.21426 of 2019
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
vsg
W.P.No.21426 of 2019
And
W.M.P.Nos. 20627 & 31786 of 2019
22.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
