DAS ANITA RAVINDRANATH Vs. CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed this writ petition at the time when she was working as Director/Research, Development, Training & Extension in the Coir Board. She retired from service on 31.3.2020. The writ petition was filed aggrieved by the reduction of her pay with retrospective effect from 7.8.1995. Exts.P1, P2 and P3 are the orders under challenge.

(2.) The petitioner joined Coir Board as a Senior Scientific Assistant. While working as Scientific Assistant, she was promoted as Senior Scientific Officer as per Ext.P5 order dated 24.8.1994 for the duration of the project on an ad-hoc basis. It was also ordered that in addition to her work as Senior Scientific Officer she shall continue to discharge her present functions. As per Ext.P6 order her pay was fixed under FR 22(1)(a)(i). The petitioner continued as a Senior Scientific Officer until she was regularly appointed with effect from 6.12.2007. It is stated that aggrieved by the denial of regularization of the petitioner as Senior Scientific Officer, she had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.29457 of 2004, when the respondents stated that promotion was not granted because as per the recruitment rules, the method of appointment was direct recruitment. By Ext.P7 judgment dated 5.6.2006 this Court directed the respondent Government of India to consider whether it should go for direct recruitment or considering the service rendered by the petitioner for more than 14 years whether the Rules can be relaxed to enable regularization of the petitioner. On 7.8.2006, Ext.P8 letter was issued by the Coir Board informing that it has already addressed the Ministry of Agro & Rural Industries for amendment of the Rules enabling her promotion as Senior Scientific Officer on regular basis. It is stated that the Government of India thereafter issued orders relaxing the upper age limit. It is stated that the petitioner was thereafter appointed as Senior Scientific Officer by direct recruitment, granting her age relaxation, as per Ext.P10 order dated 6.12.2007. The petitioner continued as such and thereafter as per Ext.P11 order dated 4.1.2016 she was appointed as Director (RD&TE) at Central Coir Research Institute by direct recruitment. It is thereafter Ext.P1 order was issued pointing out the mistakes found in the fixation of her pay for the period from 7.8.1995 onwards. It is stated that based on representation of the petitioner against the same, the Board cancelled Ext.P1 refixation as per Ext.P2 proceedings dated 27.4.2016. However, Ext.P3 proceedings were issued thereafter on 17.6.2016 again refixing her pay with effect from 17.8.1995. The petitioner has approached this Court at that stage and this Court passed an interim order on 26.8.2016 staying the proceedings for recovery.

(3.) According to the petitioner, she did not contribute towards her fixation of pay and she was being paid the pay attached to the post in which she was working. Therefore according to her the refixation of her pay and proposed recovery of the alleged excess pay after period of more than 10 years of the original fixation of pay are unjust.