4.The Writ Court took into consideration the fact that the respondent/writ petitioner was a basic servant and in terms of Rule 21 of the Tamil Nadu Town Panchayat (Establishment) Rule 1988, the age of retirement is 60 years. Further, the Court noted that the writ petitioner was allowed to continue till the age of 60 years, therefore, the question of recovery would not arise. Thus, a direction was issued to the fourth appellant to pay the arrears of wages, if any, together with terminal benefits on or before 31.03.2017, failing which, ordered that the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 01.04.2014, i.e., the month of filing of the writ petition. We are in agreement with the view expressed by the writ court not only for the reasons assigned in the impugned order in the writ petition, but also due to the fact that the fourth appellant has extracted work from the respondent/writ petitioner till he attained the age of 60 years. Furthermore, we find that the order, which was impugned in the writ petition, dated 01.04.2013 was passed by the fourth appellant only based on the Audit objection, which would go to show that the fourth appellant by himself has not taken the decision, only to get over the Audit objection, sought for recovery from the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent.
