The Principal Vs S.Thomas Gnanadurai

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Section I5 of Letters Patent praying to allow this writ appeal and set aside the order passed by this Court dated 08.07.2019 in WP(MD). No.9727 of 2015 and dismiss the writ petition.

¶14

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

¶15

_____________ Page 1 of 6_

¶16

W.A(MD) No.79 of 2020

¶17

For Appellant : Mr.N.Dilipkumar For Respondents : Mr.Kasiraja, for Mr.S.Visvalingam for R1 Mr.P.T.Thiraviyam, Govt. Advocate for R2 & R3

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.V.Karthikeyan , J . )

¶20

This Writ Appeal arises from an order of the learned Single Judge dated 08.07.2019 in W.P.(MD)No.9727 of 2015. That Writ Petition had been filed in the name of a Certiorari, calling for the records relating to a memorandum dated 06.04.2015 passed by the third respondent, the Principal, Arasan Ganesan Polytechnic College, Sivakasi in Virudhunagar District, who is the appellant herein.

¶21

2 . The Writ Petitioner was working as a Lecturer and by the

¶22

impugned order, recovery was issued based on the objections that excess payment had been made on account of erroneous fixation of scale of pay.

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 2 of 6_

¶24

W.A(MD) No.79 of 2020

¶25

3. The learned Single Judge, after examining the precedents in cases relating to recovery, had quashed the order of recovery dated 06.04.2015. It was also directed that the correct fixation of pay as applicable to the Writ Petitioner must be effected and the pension permissible must be paid in accordance with the pay rules and the Government Orders in force. Challenging that order, the third respondent in the Writ Petition has filed the present Writ Appeal.

¶26

4. The learned counsel for the appellant had drawn our notice to a proceeding of the Director of Technical Education, dated 17.02.2020, whereby grade pay had been fixed at Rs.9,000/- for the Writ Petitioner/first respondent herein/S.Thomas Gnanadurai and necessary proceedings in this connection had also been issued, which effectively means that the direction to fixation of pay has been complied with by the appellant.

¶27

5. The learned counsel for the first respondent is also present and

¶28

he also concurred that the pay had been refixed.

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 3 of 6_

¶30

W.A(MD) No.79 of 2020

¶31

6. We have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶32

7 . In view of the fact that the appellant had come forward to revise the pay and had also determined the pensionary benefits, the further direction issued by the learned Single Judge in para 5(iii) of the order that an enquiry has to be conducted and further steps will have to be taken departmentally, necessarily have to be interfered with by this Court. The appellant herein had complied with the substantial direction to refix the pay and to ensure that the pension benefits reached the first respondent herein. In view of that fact, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge in paragraph No.5(iii) of the order is set aside.

¶33

8. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶34

[C.V.K., J.] [R.V., J.] vsm 03.09.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 4 of 6_

¶36

W.A(MD) No.79 of 2020

¶37

To

¶38