LAWS(MAD)-2004-6-117

G T PARTHASARTHY Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT; COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF CHENNAI AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (GA AND P) CORPORATION OF CHENNAI

Decided On June 17, 2004
G T Parthasarthy Appellant
V/S
Secretary To Government, Finance Department; Commissioner, Corporation Of Chennai And Assistant Commissioner (Ga And P) Corporation Of Chennai Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records in respect of the impugned proceedings of the third respondent , the Asst.Commissioner (GA & P) Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Buildings, Chennai-600 003 in G.D.C.No.P.13/2527/02 datred 12.2.2002 regarding unexplained deduction of Excess pay and quash the same and to direct the respondents to refund the unexplained deduction of Excess Pay of Rs.6,851/- along with interest and compute half of temporary service of six years and three months ie. 3 Years 1 " months for computation along with regular service for computation of Pension as per the G.O.Ms.NO.437 Finance (Pension) Department dated 23.6.1988 and also interest for the delayed payments as per G.O.Ms.No.122 Finance(Pension) Department dated 20.2.1995 and for other consequential benefits of the petitioner.

(2.) The following facts are sufficient for the disposal of the writ petition.

(3.) In the counter filed by the third respondent, it is stated that the recovery of the excess payment in the fixation of pay with effect from 1.1.1996 was made as per the direction given by the local fund audit note dated 29.10.2001 and the recommendation by the F.M.Unit dated 23.12.2000. Therefore, it cannot be stated as unexplained. It is further stated that the local fund audit in their communication had stated that the pay on 1.1.1996 was fixed at Rs.6375/- and directed to recover the excess amount paid to the petitioner from terminal benefits, since the petitioner was due to retire from service. As per the remarks offered by the local fund audit, a sum of Rs.6851/- was recovered as excess pay paid. It is further stated that the service rendered by the petitioner from 23.11.1968 to 16.7.1975 as casual labour in the Electrical Department cannot be computed for retirement benefits, since the appointment was purely temporary and without right of any claim in further for permanency.