This writ appeal was dismissed as the Division Bench found no illegality in the Single Judge's order refusing recovery of excess pay drawn during temporary promotions, citing the White Washer case and relevant Government Orders.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.07.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.A.No.1230 of 2018 and CMP.No.10098/2018
W.P.No.12751 of 2013:
Presented to this Court order Article 226 of the constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order of the 2nd Respondent made in the proceedings A5/40494/13-7 and A5/40494/13-8 dt.22.10.2013 quash the same and consequently direct the Respondent to extend all the benefits of pay fixation and other benefits pursuant to the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A4/1613/98 dated 21.10.98 for all purpose including pension and pensionary benefits.
For Appellants :: Mr.P.S.Siva Shanmuga Sundaram, Special Government Pleader For Respondents:: ...
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was pronounced by HULUVADI G.RAMESH, J.)
The Writ Appeal is directed against the Common Order dated 14.07.2016 made in W.P.No.32235/2013 along with other Writ Petitions by a learned Single Judge.
Scientific staff based on the date of promotion/joining in the post of Scientific Assistant Grade I. Aggrieved over the said orders, some individuals filed W.P.No.12751/2004 etc. before this Court and obtained stay on the operation of the said order dated 9.12.2003. But as per the direction of the Tribunal, another seniority list was prepared during 2006 in which the services of the writ petitioner in the post of Scientific Assistant Grade I was regularised w.e.f. 30.8.1990 among others and in the said revised seniority list, it has been mentioned that the same is subject to the outcome of the pending writ petitions. Subsequently, the W.P.No.12751/2004 etc. batch was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by common order dated 28.1.2009 thereby upholding the order of the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the revised Seniority List. In the meantime, on account of the audit objection of the Accountant General dated 9.9.2008 that the regularisation of the services of 14 Scientific Staff including the writ petitioner herein in the Grade of Scientific Assistant Grade I is much before their initial date of promotion as Scientific Assistant Grade I and the same is not in order, recovery should be made. Aggrieved over the same, the writ petitioner/1st respondent has preferred a Writ Petition before this Court which was allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 14.07.2016.
''7. On a perusal of the impugned orders, it is seen that the impugned orders unilaterally say that on audit objection, it is found out that the revision of the selection grade was made wrongly and therefore, they re-fixed the pay of the selection grade and consequentially, all those benefits, which were given to the petitioners during the relevant years were sought to be recovered from the petitioners, without notice, which under law is not permissible.
13.8.1975 which specifically states that the persons who worked in temporary promotional posts and after reversion, there shall not be recovery of the amount paid to them, while holding the promotional posts.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether excess pay drawn by employees during temporary promotion posts can be recovered unilaterally after reversion.
Whether the Single Judge's order denying recovery and directing payment of retirement benefits contains any illegality.
Whether the writ appeal challenging the Single Judge's order should be allowed or dismissed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq MasihFollowed¶28
2015 (2) Supreme Court Cases 151 State of Punjab and others etc. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer case)
State of Tamil Nadu
Dr. P. Kirubakaran
Principal Accountant General
HULUVADI G.RAMESH
M.DHANDAPANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
