P RATHNAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records of the Recovery Order of the fourth respondent in Roc .No. 41/2004/A1 dated 31.5.2004 and to quash the same and further to direct the 4th respondent to revise the scale of pay after regularising the service from the date of appointment on 19.3.1976 with all attendant service and monetary benefits with interest.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed in the Tamil Nadu Water Supply Board from 19.3.1976 to 31.10.1977 in the office at Thyagathuruvam and subsequently, he has been appointed as Electrician in the 4th respondent's Town Panchayat on 31.10.1977 on the basis of transfer cum appointment without break in service in the post sanctioned by the third respondent Collector. It is to be noted that the District Collector, South Arcot, Cuddalore-1 in his proceedings in Na. Ka. Pa. 6.60414/82 dated 30.11.1982 sanctioned the post of Electrician Grade II and other posts to the fourth respondent/Town Panchayat and accorded permission for the appointment of suitable candidates to the said posts on a temporary basis for a period of one year. Accordingly, as per proceeding of the fourth respondent/The Executive Officer, Town Panchayat, Thyagathuruvam, Kallakurichi in Roc. No. A1/670/80 dated 8.7.1983, the petitioner was appointed as Electrician Grade II in fourth respondent/Town Panchayat Office from 19.3.1976 to 31.10.1977 F.N. in the scale of pay of Rs. 295-5-315-10-475 on a temporary basis in the sanctioned post and he joined the office on 15.7.1983 F.N.

(3.) The stand of the petitioner is that from the date of his appointment as Electrician in the Tamil Nadu Water Supply Board from 19.3.1976 onwards since he was working continuously as Electrician in the fourth respondent and he made a request to the fourth respondent to regularise his service from the date of his appointment i.e., on 19.3.1976 and also requested the fourth respondent to fix the pay, but the same was not considered and to his dismay, without regularising his service and revising the pay scales by awarding selection grade ie,ten years after the date of appointment, the fourth respondent issued impugned order dated 31.5.2004 by revising his scale of pay from 1.4.1995 onwards by reducing the salary and issued an order of recovery of a sum of Rs. 37,202/- which was to be recovered in 50 monthly equal instalments ie., 49th instalments at the rate of Rs. 740/- p.m., and 50th instalment, a sum of Rs. 942/- starting from the month of June, 2004 onwards.