N.KRISHNAMOORTHY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.PV1/6979/2009 dated 03.07.2012 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant Director of Panchayat from the day of his immediate junior was promoted.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Special Revenue Inspector in Taluk Check Post and he worked as s Special Revenue Inspector, Assistant R.W.O Grade II in various places and on 11.01.1992, he was promoted to the post of R.W.O Grade II and on 09.08.1996, he was promoted as Extension Officer and on 15.11.2004, he was promoted as Block Development Officer and now serving as Block Development Officer in the Collectorate Office, Karur.

(3.) While the petitioner was working as a Block Development Officer, Thogamalai, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 12.08.2009, by which the Panchayat Assistant Grade I and Grade II, who are doing the same job, were brought into the same scale of pay. The reading of para 3 of the said G.O gave an impression to the petitioner / Block Development Officer that monetary benefits has to be given from 01.01.2007, but in the last para of the said G.O, it is stated that the said G.O came into force on the date of issuance of the above G.O, but the petitioner by oversight understood the G.O wrongly and paid the arrears to the Panchayat Assistants Grade II who were brought to the category of Grade I. While so, on 06.10.2009, the petitioner was placed under suspension. The above said G.O was misread by other Block Development Officers also and arrears were paid to the Panchayat Assistants from 01.01.2007. Pursuant to the same, many of the Block Development Officers were transferred to outside Districts and the petitioner was transferred from Karur to Salem. Subsequent to the same, a charge-memo was issued against the petitioner by the second respondent in his proceedings dated 20.10.2009 and the petitioner gave his reply stating that it was a mistake and also stated that all the amount paid was recovered.