Disposed

R.Rajendran v. The Director of School

Madras HC1 Aug 2024WP/22723/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A P.G.Assistant challenged a communication directing that his selection grade pay be withheld until recovery of an alleged excess payment of Rs.42,217/-. The Court held recovery was independent of his entitlement and directed disbursement within twelve weeks, permitting recovery thereafter only after hearing, in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 4th respondent to disburse selection grade pay within 12 weeks; respondents may recover Rs.42,217/- if due, after hearing, per law including set-off. No costs.

R.Rajendran Vs The Director of School — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P. No.22723 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 01.08.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶6

W.P. No.22723 of 2015 and

¶7

M.P. No.1 of 2015

R.Rajendran

..Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006.

¶12

2.The District Educational Officer, Namakkal District, Namakkal.

¶13

3.The Chief Educational Officer, Namakkal District, Namakkal.

¶14

4.The Headmaster, Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Mohanur, Namakkal District-637 015. ..Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 4^th Respondent in relation to the proceeding issued in Na.Ka.No.63/2014 dated 17.06.2014 and quash the same and consequently issue a direction to the 4^th Respondent to grant selection grade scale of pay to the petitioner in the post of P.G.Assistant from 05.06.2012 and grant consequential arrears of pay, as per the proceedings of the Chief Educational Officer, Namakkal District issued in

¶16

Page 1 of 8

¶17

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

¶18

W.P. No.22723 of 2015

¶19

P.M.No.8471/A6/2013 dated 26.12.2013 and as per the proceedings issued in Na.Ka.No.2680/A6/2014 dated 26.05.2014.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Saseetharan

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.M.Rajendiran Additional Government Pleader

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned

¶24

proceedings/communication dated 17.06.2014 whereby the 4^th Respondent has addressed to the 3^rd Respondent not to disburse the selection grade pay until a sum of Rs.42,217/- stated / alleged to be due from the petitioner, in view of the excess payment made.

¶25

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's entitlement to the selection grade pay is not in doubt as would be evident from the proceedings dated 26.12.2013 whereby the 3^rd Respondent has affirmed the petitioner's entitlement to the selection grade of pay. The following portions of the said letter / communication is relevant and thus extracted hereunder:

¶26

“.....Nkw;gb Njh;Tepiy vej tpjpfisAk; ; jshj; jp; Mizaplgglhjjhy; , ; ,th ,jd; gadhy; Vw; gLk; epYit;

¶27

Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

W.P. No.22723 of 2015

¶29

Cjpajjpid Njh; Tepiy toq; fg; gLk; ; ehs; Kjy; tpjpfspdgb; ngwj;jFjp cilath; vdTk; Miz

¶30

toq;fg;gLfpwJ.

¶31

,t;thrphpah; Njh;Tepiy toq;fg;gLk; ehs; md;W tpLg;gpy; ,Ue;jhy; mth; kPsg; gzpNaw;Fk; ehs; Kjy; mtUf;F Njh;Tepiy gzg;gyd; toq;fg;gLk;.

¶32

t.vz;	ngah;,gjtp kw;Wk; gzpGhpAk; gs;sp (jpU/jpUkjp/ nry;tp)	Kjfiy Mrphpah; gzpapy; gzptud; Kiwg; gLj;jpa ehs;	10 Mz;L gzpf;fhy j;jpy; vLj;Js;s Cjpakpy; yh tpLg;G ehl;fs;	10 Mz;L gzpf;fhy k; Kbf;Fk; ehs;	Njh;T epiy toq;fg;gL k; ehs;
1	Mh;.,uhN[e;jpud; ,Kjfiy Mrphpah; (jkpo;) muR Nk.ep.gs;sp, NkhfDhh; (kfsph;), ehkf;fy; khtl;lk;.	05.06.2002 Kw;gfy;	,y;iy	04.06.2012 gpw;gfy;	05.06.2012 Kw;gfy;

¶33

,j;Jld; rk;ke;jg;gl;l gzpahsuJ gzpg;gjpNtL kw;Wk; mry; rhd;Wfs; ,j;Jld; rhh;e;j gs;spj; jiyik MrphpaUf;F mDg;gg;gLfpwJ. Ngw;wikf;F xg;Gjyspf;FkhW mwptpf;fg;gLfpwJ. ”

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner would further proceed to

¶35

place reliance on the communication dated 26.05.2014 whereby the 3^rd Respondent had intimated / directed the 4^th Respondent to disburse the

¶36

pay that is due to the petitioner and report. The following extract is

¶37

Page 3 of 8

¶38

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

¶39

W.P. No.22723 of 2015

¶40

relevant:

¶41

“ rk;ke;jg;gl;l jiyikahrphpah; tpjpKiwfSf;F cl;gl;L md;dhUf;F NruNtz;ba epYit Cjpaj;jpid cld; ngw;W toq;fp tpl;L mjd; tpguj;jpid ,t;tYtyfj;jpw;F njhpag;gLj;JkhW mwptpf;fg;gLfpwJ. ”

¶42

Whileso, vide impugned communication dated 17.06.2014 the 4^th respondent informed the 3^rd respondent that a sum of Rs.42,217/- was paid in excess to the petitioner while indicating that the selection grade pay, be released only on recovery of the said sum that is allegedly due from the petitioner. The following extract is relevant:

¶43

“ vdNt , jdpahh; muR gzk; (&gha; ehw;gj;jpuz;lhapuj;J ,UEhw;W gjpNdO kl;Lk;) muR fzf;fpy; jpUk;g nrYj;jpaTld; mtUf;Fr; Nru Ntz;ba Njh;Tepiyf;fhd Cjpa epYitia tpjpKiwfSf;F cl;gl;L md;dhUf;F toq;fg;gLk; vdj; jq;fSf;Fg; gzpTld; njhptpj;Jf;nfhs;sg;gLfpwJ. ”

¶44

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

¶45

withholding of the selection grade to which the petitioner is admittedly

¶46

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

¶47

Page 4 of 8

¶48

W.P. No.22723 of 2015

¶49

entitled, until recovery of the alleged sums due from the petitioner is unsustainable inasmuch as recovery of the alleged excess amount is independent of the petitioner's entitlement to selection grade pay.

¶50

The learned counsel for the Respondents would request that they

¶51

may be granted liberty to proceed to recover the sum of Rs.42,217/- from the petitioner, in the manner known to law.

¶52

Recording the same, the 4^th Respondent is directed to disburse the selection grade pay which is admittedly due to the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. It is open to the Respondents after granting the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing to proceed to recover a sum of Rs.42,217/-, if found due from the petitioner in the manner known to law, including setting off against the sums due to the petitioner.

¶53

The writ petition stands disposed of with the above direction. No

¶54

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶55

Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶56

W.P. No.22723 of 2015

¶57

01.08.2024

¶58

Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No mka

¶59

Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶60

W.P. No.22723 of 2015

¶61

To:

¶62

1.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006.

¶63

2.The District Educational Officer, Namakkal District, Namakkal.

¶64

3.The Chief Educational Officer, Namakkal District, Namakkal.

¶65

4.The Headmaster, Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Mohanur, Namakkal District-637 015.

¶66

Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶67

W.P. No.22723 of 2015

¶68

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

¶69

mka

¶70

W.P. No.22723 of 2015

¶71

01.08.2024

¶72

Page 8 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

R.Rajendran v. The Director of School

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Rajendran v. The Director of School

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Sundaramurthy Vs The State of Tamilnadu

S.Thirumal Vs The Regional Director

Tmt.L.Padmini Vs The District Collector

Dr.S.Anandkumar, Vs The Dean

I.Kempanna, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu rep.

V. Sivakumar, Vs The Tamilnadu Public Service