Dismissed

The Joint Commissioner St v. E Rajadurai

Madras HC2 Dec 2024WA(MD)/2459/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ appeal, the court examined a challenge to an order holding the cancellation of selection and special grade of pay illegal. Relying on Government Orders and the Supreme Court's decision in the Rafiq Masih case, the court quashed the recovery order and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the order directed recovery of excess pay; dismissal of the writ appeal. No costs.

The Joint Commissioner St Vs E Rajadurai — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

WA(MD). No.2459 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Date : 02/12/2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE

¶6

WA(MD). No.2459 of 2024 and CMP(MD) No.17200 of 2024

¶7

The Joint Commissioner, Madurai State Tax Division, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Court compound Cantonment Tiruchirappalli ... Appellant

¶8

¶9

E.Rajadurai ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER :- Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters patent against the order dated 19.09.2023 in WP(MD). No. 6878/2023.

¶11

For Appellant : Mr.SR.A.Ramachandran Additional Government Pleader

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.C.Joseph Sathianeson

¶13

1/8

¶14

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

¶15

WA(MD). No.2459 of 2024

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.S.RAMESH, J.)

¶18

Challenging is made to the order of the writ Court dated 19.09.2023 in WP(MD) Nos.6878/2023.

¶19

When the Tamil Nadu Kadhi 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 Kadhi 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.

¶20

The aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.154 came to be subsequently amended through G.O.Ms.No.152 Handloom, Handicraft, Textiles and Kadhi Department dated 12.07.2012, wherein, the service protection was also extended to these employees who were transferred from the Board 2/8

¶21

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

¶22

WA(MD). No.2459 of 2024

¶23

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 service period.

¶24

Thereafter, all the erstwhile employees of the Board 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.

¶25

Through a letter dated 19.12.2017, the Secretary to Government, Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and Kadhi 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 petitions.

¶26

3/8

¶27

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

¶28

WA(MD). No.2459 of 2024

¶29

The learned Single Judge placed reliance on an earlier decision

¶30

of the writ Court in WP (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 writ petition is assailed in this intra Court appeal.

¶31

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 Kadhi 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 orders of the writ Court.

¶32

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

¶33

4/8

¶34

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

¶35

WA(MD). No.2459 of 2024

¶36

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:

¶37

"jkpo;ehL fju; fpuhkj; njhopy; thupaj;jpypUe;J gpwJiwfs;/ nghJj;Jiw 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 ghJfhg;G mspg;gJld; (Pay protection)> mtu;fSf;F gzpg;ghJfhg;Gk; (Service protection) mspf;fyhk;. NkYk;> mg;gzpahsu;fs; thupaj;jpy; gzpahw;wpa gzpf;fhyj;ij ghJfhf;Fk; tifapy; thupag; 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;."

¶38

When the employees of Kadhi 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. 5/8

¶39

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

¶40

WA(MD). No.2459 of 2024

¶41

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 these employees in the Kadhi Board should also be included for calculating the pensionary services. Thus, all the erstwhile employees of Kadhi Board were ultimately extended with pay protection, service protection and pensionary benefits by calculating their service period rendered at Kadhi 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.

¶42

The learned Single Judge had also rightly considered the intention of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.152 and had allowed the writ petitions. 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 Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer's case) [2015 (4) SCC 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

¶43

6/8

¶44

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

¶45

WA(MD). No.2459 of 2024

¶46

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.

¶47

In the light of these findings and observations, we do not find any merit in the writ appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶48

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

¶49

02.12.2024

¶50

NCC : Yes Index : Yes

¶51

¶52

¶53

The Joint Commissioner, Madurai State Tax Division, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Court compound Cantonment Tiruchirappalli

¶54

7/8

¶55

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

¶56

WA(MD). No.2459 of 2024

¶57

M.S.RAMESH,J AND A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.

¶58

¶59

COMMON JUDGMENT IN WA(MD) No.2459 of 2024

¶60

Date : 02/12/2024

¶61

8/8

¶62

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

The Joint Commissioner St v. E Rajadurai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Joint Commissioner St v. E Rajadurai

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

The Joint Commissioner (St) Vs R . Periyasamy

Sudalai Vs P.Lakshmi Manikam

Seeni Musthafa Vs The District Collector

The Principal Secretary to the Government Vs Y.Suresh Kumar

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs a.Subbiah(Died)

Annadurai Vs The District Collector