M PANAIYADIAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY consent the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order passed by the second respondent dated 10.01.2006, and consequently direct the respondents to pay the petitioner's gratuity amount without any recovery on the salary paid to the petitioner.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is as follows:- THE petitioner was functioning as the District Registrar (Audit) and attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2005. Pursuant to Government order No.1455, while in service as Sub-Registrar Grade-I, the petitioner's pay was refixed with effect from 01.01.1996, based on the recommendations of the fifth pay commission and the District Registrar by order dated 20.04.1998, revised the petitioner's scale of pay from 20.04.1998, from Rs.6493/- to Rs.7237/- along with allowances. THEreafter, pursuant to orders dated 29.02.1996, 01.01.1997 and 01.01.1998, the petitioner was granted an increment of Rs.200/- by each order. THE second respondent by proceedings dated 16.11.1998, refixed the petitioner's pay at Rs.8,550/- with effect from 06.08.1998. THE petitioner had drawn a sum of Rs.10,475/- as on the date of the superannuation i.e., 31.12.2005. Though, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation, he was not paid the gratuity and the same was withheld, when, the petitioner requested for settlement of gratuity amount, the second respondent by the impugned order dated 10.01.2006, revised and refixed the petitioner's pay by cancelling the earlier orders dated 22.05.1998 and 16.11.1998. THE correctness of this order is assailed in the present writ petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the third respondent by relying on the counter affidavit would contend that while awarding Selection Grade to the petitioner on 22.07.1995, in the post of Sub-Registrar Grade II, the second respondent did not follow the correct procedure in the matter of fixation of pay, which resulted in higher rates of pay from 1995. It is further contended that the excess payment was on account of the wrong procedure adopted by the second respondent and therefore, the recovery is justified.