Partly allowed

S.Candavel v. Union of India

Madras HC2 Jul 2024WA/507/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ appeal challenging the re-fixation of the appellant's pay and subsequent recovery proceedings. Upholding the Single Judge's view on re-fixation as not interfering with merits, the Court set aside the recovery of excess salary due to the hardship of imposing it after a delay.

What did the court decide?

The re-fixation of pay is confirmed. The recovery of excess salary paid to the appellant is set aside.

S.Candavel Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.A.No.507 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02.07.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶8

W.A.No.507 of 2021

¶9

and C.M.P.No.1996 of 2021

S.Candavel

.. Appellant

Union of India, Rep by the Secretary to Government of Puducherry, Animal Husbandry & Welfare Department, Chief Secretariat, Puducherry.

¶14

Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Kurumbapet, Puducherry, Rep by its Dean.

¶15

Ilangovan

¶16

S.Revathidevi

¶17

P.Sittravel

¶18

.. Respondents

¶19

Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters patent against the order dated 02.09.2020 passed in W.P.No.16376 of 2013 on the file of this Court.

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

___________ Page 1 of 4_

¶22

W.A.No.507 of 2021

¶23

For the Appellant : Mr.C.Vigneshwaran For the Respondents : Mr.J.Kumaran Addl. Govt. Pleader (Puducherry), for RR 1 and 2 : Ms.M.N.Sumathy for RR 3 and 4 No appearance for R-5

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

(Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)

¶26

Re-fixation of pay of the appellant and the consequential recovery proceedings were under challenge in the writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed which resulted in filing of the present writ appeal.

¶27

The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that re-

¶28

fixation of pay was made contrary to the Pay Rules as admissible to the appellant. The appellant is serving in Grade-C post and therefore, the re-fixation reducing the fixation originally done by the authorities is improper.

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

___________ Page 2 of 4_

¶31

W.A.No.507 of 2021

¶32

The learned Single Judge considered the merits regarding refixation which we are not inclined to interfere.

¶33

As far as the recovery of excess salary is concerned, the appellant is working in Grade-C cadre and therefore, such recovery imposed after a lapse of several years would result in hardship to the employee. The fixation of pay of the appellant along with others was made in the year 2010. Such revision of pay was sought to be refixed through the impugned order in 2013. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the recovery of excess salary paid to the appellant.

¶34

In view of the facts and circumstances, the writ order impugned

¶35

stands confirmed as far as the re-fixation of pay made by the respondents are concerned. The recovery of excess salary paid to the appellant alone is set aside. Consequently, the writ appeal stands allowed-in-part. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶36

(S.M.S., J.) (C.K., J.) 02.07.2024 Index : Yes NC : Yes sra

¶37

___________ Page 3 of 4_

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

W.A.No.507 of 2021

¶40

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

¶41

(sra)

¶42

¶43

The Secretary to Government of Puducherry, Animal Husbandry & Welfare Department, Chief Secretariat, Puducherry.

¶44

The Dean,

¶45

Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Kurumbapet, Puducherry.

¶46

W.A.No.507 of 2021

¶47

02.07.2024

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

___________ Page 4 of 4_

S.Candavel v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Candavel v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Ramadass Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

B. Krishnakumar Vs the Tneb Rep by Its

N.Natarajan Vs the Commissioner

V.S.Khaja Mohideen Vs the Collector

G.Karthikeyan Vs The Registrar General

Susila Vs the Government of Tamilnadu