Madras High Court
The Superintending Engineer vs P.Maharajan on 5 June, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
1 W.A.(MD)NO.85 OF 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.A.(MD)No.85 of 2023 AND
C.M.P.(MD)No.1063 of 2023
The Superintending Engineer,
Tuticorin Thermal Power Station,
(Procurement and Administration),
TANGEDCO, TTPS,
Tuticorin – 4. ... Appellant / Respondent
Vs.
P.Maharajan ... Respondent / Petitioner
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to
set aside the order dated 26.09.2022 made in W.P.(MD)No.21032 of
2015 and allow this writ appeal in the interest of justice.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Arivalagan
For Respondent : Mr.R.Murali
***
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 12:10:47 pm )
2 W.A.(MD)NO.85 OF 2023
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was delivered by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)
Heard both sides.
2. The respondent herein joined the appellant organisation as
Helper only on 01.05.1999. It was discovered that the respondent
had submitted bogus educational certificates. Many of the employees
had committed similar acts. The respondent was dismissed from
service on 01.02.2000. After the management entered into S.12(3)
Settlement, the respondent herein was reinstated on 09.07.2003. The
period between the date of dismissal and reinstatement was to be
treated as one of extraordinary leave on loss of pay. The pay of the
respondent also suffered reduction.
3. The Board issued proceedings No.3 dated 11.01.2014
conferring service weightage of one increment @ 3% of Pay + Grade
Pay to those who had completed ten years regular service as on
01.12.2011. Clause (3) of the said proceedings also stated that
service weightage of one increment would be allowed even to those
who were completing ten years of completed regular service during
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 12:10:47 pm )
the period between 01.12.2011 and 09.01.2014 which will count for
normal increment. The management conferred the benefit under the
aforesaid proceedings in favour of the respondent herein with effect
from 01.12.2011.
4. Following the audit objection that EOL period could not have
been included in the total service for the purpose of allowing service
weightage, recovery was ordered. Challenging the same, the
respondent herein filed W.P.(MD)No.21032 of 2015. The writ petition
was allowed vide order dated 26.09.2022. Challenging the same, this
writ appeal has been filed.
5. It is not in dispute that the respondent herein was reinstated
on 09.07.2003. Even if we exclude the EOL period of three years, still
the respondent herein would have completed ten years of service on
09.07.2013. Therefore, the benefit of the aforesaid proceedings could
have been conferred on the respondent only with effect from
09.07.2013. We therefore modify the order passed by the learned
single Judge and permit the respondent to recover the excess
payment made up to 09.07.2013.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 12:10:47 pm )
6. With the aforesaid modification, this writ appeal is partly
allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
(G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) & (K.RAJASEKAR, J.)
5th June 2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
PMU
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 12:10:47 pm )
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
AND
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
PMU
05.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 12:10:47 pm )
