Allowed

The Joint Commissioner (St) v. R . Periyasamy

Madras HC29 Nov 2024WA(MD)/2451/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a writ appeal challenging a single judge's interim order protecting absorbed Khadi Board employees from recovery of excess pay. The court held that subsequent Government Orders granted service and pension protection and that recovery was illegal as the payment period exceeded five years.

What did the court decide?

The single judge's order was not set aside; the appeal was dismissed.

The Joint Commissioner (St) Vs R . Periyasamy — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.A.(MD)No.2451 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 29.11.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE

¶7

W.A.(MD)No.2451 of 2024

¶8

and

¶9

C.M.P.(MD)No.17108 of 2024

¶10

The Joint Commissioner (ST),

¶11

Thiruchirappalli State Tax Division,

¶12

Commercial Taxes Buildings,

¶13

Court Compound,

¶14

Cantonment,

¶15

Thiruchirapalli – 620 001. : Appellant

¶16

Vs. R.Periyasamy : Respondent

¶17

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No. 6879 of 2023 dated 19.09.2023.

¶18

For Appellant : Mr.SRA.Ramachandran

¶19

Additional Government Pleader

¶20

For Respondent : Mr.J.Pooventhera Rajan

¶21

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

¶22

1/8

¶23

W.A.(MD)No.2451 of 2024

[

JUDGMENT

[ Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.S.RAMESH, J.]

¶28

Challenging the order dated 19.09.2023 in W.P.(MD)No. 6879 of 2023, the appellant is before this Court with this Writ Appeal.

¶29

2. When the Tamil Nadu Khadi Board was declared to be financially in-viable to run the unit, employees of the board were absorbed to other Government departments through G.O.Ms.No. 154 Handloom, Handicraft, Textiles and Khadi Department dated 21.11.2009. As per the said G.O., the employees, who have been absorbed to other departments, will be treated as new appointees with pay protection. However, the service protection was not extended to them.

¶30

3. The aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.154 came to be subsequently amended through G.O.Ms.No.152 Handloom, Handicraft, Textiles and Khadi Department dated 12.07.2012, wherein, the service protection was also extended to these employees who were transferred from the Board apart from their pay protection. In addition, G.O.Ms.No.152 also gave credit to the service rendered by them in the Board, for the purpose of calculating the pensionary

¶31

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

¶32

2/8

¶33

W.A.(MD)No.2451 of 2024

¶34

4. Thereafter, all the erstwhile employees of the Board

¶35

were extended with selection grade of pay on completion of 10 years and special grade of pay on completion of 20 years of service, which service period included their earlier service rendered in the Board.

¶36

5. Through a letter dated 19.12.2017, the Secretary to Government, Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadi Department, had permitted all the Heads of the Departments to treat the selection grade/special grade of pay granted to these employees as illegal and ordered for recovery of the excess payment made to them. The letter of the secretary dated 19.12.2017 was assailed before the learned Single Judge through writ petition.

¶37

6. The learned Single Judge placed reliance on an earlier decision of the writ Court in W.P.(MD)No.4976/2020 relating to similar excessive staff of the Board, who were absorbed in the other Government Departments and whose award of selection grade/special grade of pay was cancelled and held that the cancellation of selection grade/special grade is illegal. The order passed in the said writ petition is assailed in this intra Court appeal.

¶38

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

¶39

3/8

¶40

W.A.(MD)No.2451 of 2024

¶41

7. The only ground raised by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants is that G.O.Ms.No.152 enables for inclusion of the service period of those employees with Khadi Board, only for the limited purpose of calculating the pensionary services and not otherwise and therefore, the award of selection/special grade of pay was rightly declared to be illegal and the consequential recovery was ordered by the appellant and thereby sought for setting aside the order of the Writ Court.

¶42

8. We do not agree with such a submission, since G.O.Ms.No.152, which is an amendment to the earlier G.O.Ms.No. 154, extends service protection simpliciter, as well as for inclusion of service period of any employee. G.O.Ms.No.152 in this regard is self explanatory, which reads as follows:

¶43

"jkpo;ehL fju; fpuhkj; njhopy; thupaj;jpypUe;J gpwJiwfs;/ nghJj;Jiw

¶44

epWtdq;fs;/jd;dhl;rp cupik ngw;w epWtdq;fs; kw;Wk; Fokq;fspy; <u;j;Jf; nfhs;sg;gLk; Copau;fSf;F rk;gs

¶45

ghJfhg;G mspg;gJld; (Pay protection), mtu;fSf;F gzpg;ghJfhg;Gk; (Service protection) mspf;fyhk;. NkYk;> mg;gzpahsu;fs; thupaj;jpy; gzpahw;wpa

¶46

gzpf;fhyj;ij ghJfhf;Fk; tifapy; thupag;

¶47

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

¶48

4/8

¶49

W.A.(MD)No.2451 of 2024

¶50

gzpf;fhyq;fis mtu;fs; gzpGupAk; Jiwapd; gzpf;fhyj;Jld; Nru;j;J Xa;T+jpag; gad;fSf;F fzf;fpl;Lf; nfhs;szk;. NkYk; mg;gzpahsu;fs; Xa;T ngWk;NghJ gzpaku;j;jg;gl;l muRJiwfNs Xa;T+jpag; gad;fis njhFg;G epjpapypUe;J toq;fyhk;."

¶51

9. When the employees of Khadi Board were ordered to be absorbed in other Government departments, G.O.Ms.No.154 came to be passed with a specific clause that these employees will have the benefit of pay protection, but cannot be extended with service protection. However, G.O.Ms.No.152 brought forth an amendment to G.O.Ms.No.154, by incorporating service protection also, as evident in the aforesaid extract. The second portion of the Government order clarifies that the service rendered by the employees in the Khadi Board should also be included for calculating the pensionary services. Thus, all the erstwhile employees of Khadi Board were ultimately extended with pay protection, service protection and pensionary benefits by calculating their service period rendered at Khadi Board. We are not in a position to give any other meaning to G.O.Ms.No.152, apart from what has been categorically stated therein. It is for this reason that we have held that we do not agree with the ground raised by the learned Additional Government Pleader.

¶52

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

¶53

5/8

¶54

W.A.(MD)No.2451 of 2024

¶55

10. The learned Single Judge had also rightly considered the intention of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.152 and had allowed the writ petition. This apart, the learned Single Judge had also placed reliance on the decision in a similar writ petition, in which a reference has also been made to the case of State of Punjab and

¶56

Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer's case) [2015 (4) SCC

¶57

324] and held that recovery from Group C and Group D employees is impermissible in law. It would be pertinent to point out here that the Supreme Court in White washer's case has held that recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period of excess of five years before the order of recovery is issued, is also impermissible in law, which proposition would also apply to the facts in the present cases.

¶58

11. In the light of these findings and observations, we do not find any merit in the present Writ Appeal. Accordingly, the Writ Appeals stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶59

[M.S.R.,J.] & [A.D.M.C.,J.]

¶60

29.11.2024

¶61

Neutral Citation : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶62

6/8

¶63

W.A.(MD)No.2451 of 2024

¶64

¶65

To The Joint Commissioner (ST), Thiruchirappalli State Tax Division, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Court Compound, Cantonment, Thiruchirapalli – 620 001.

¶66

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

¶67

7/8

¶68

W.A.(MD)No.2451 of 2024

¶69

M.S.RAMESH, J. and

¶70

A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.

¶71

¶72

JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A.(MD)No.2451 of 2024

¶73

29.11.2024

¶74

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

¶75

8/8

The Joint Commissioner (St) v. R . Periyasamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Joint Commissioner (St) v. R . Periyasamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Selvaraj Vs Thirunallur Village Panchayat

The Director of Elementary Education Vs S Rajeswari

D.Chandran Vs The Management

Sudalai Vs P.Lakshmi Manikam

Seeni Musthafa Vs The District Collector

Sahabudeen Vs The District Collector