LAWS(MAD)-2011-10-230

D CHELLADURAI Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI-9, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DINDIGUL DISTRICT, DINDIGUL AND COMMISSIONER, PACHAYAT UNION, RETTIARCHATIRAM, DINDIGUL DISTRICT

Decided On October 19, 2011
D Chelladurai Appellant
V/S
Secretary To Government, Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9, District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul And Commissioner, Pachayat Union, Rettiarchatiram, Dindigul District Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed to call for the records connected with the impugned order Na.Ka.No. 1022/04/A1 dated 31.3.2004 passed by the third respondent and quash the same.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Electrician Grade II in Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board by an order dated 5.4.1997 of the Executive Engineer TWAD Board. He was employed to maintain the water supply and power pumps and hand pumps in Reddiar Chathiram Panchayat Union in the then Madurai District. The Government took up the policy decision to transfer the maintenance of the power pumps of the Panchayat Unions from TWAD Board to the Panchayat Unions itself in terms of G.O.1837, Rural Development Department dated 29.11.1982. While he was an employee of the TWAD Board, he was under the control of the Panchayat Union, the third respondent herein.

(3.) In such circumstances, the petitioner was absorbed in Panchayat services. The Government issued G.O.Ms.136, Rural Development Department, dated 19.7.1999 for counting the service of the employees who are absorbed in Panchayat service from TWAD Board for the purpose of giving increment and pension. The third respondent granted selection grade on completion of 10 years of service and Special Grade on completion of 20 year of service with effect from 1.6.1999 and monetary benefits were paid accordingly. However, there was an audit objection stating that G.O.Ms.No. 136. Rural Development Department dated 19.7.1999 provides for counting services for the purpose of pension only and not for any other purposes. Hence, the third respondent passed an impugned order Na.Ka.No. 1022/04/A1, dated 31.3.2004 for recovery of benefits that was given to the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 8.12.2000. Hence, the petitioner filed Original Application No. 1992 of 2004 (W.P.No. 17775 of 2007) to quash the impugned order dated 31.3.2004. While ordering the notice of motion on 13.7.2004, the Tribunal granted interim stay.