SPECIAL OFFICER Vs. S KADIRESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.A.Nos.1030 and 1031 of 2012

(2.) The respondent in W.A.No.1030 of 2011 initially joined the services of Primary Co-Operative Land Development Bank, Srivilliputtur on 02.05.1968 as clerk and subsequently he was promoted as supervisor and then as Grade I Supervisor. The respondent in W.A.No.1031 of 2011 initially joined as Supervisor in Primary Co-Operative Land Development Bank, Kovilpatti. Subsequently he was promoted as Gr.I Supervisor and then as Selection Grade supervisor. A decision was taken by the first appellant bank in the year 1984 to appoint the Senior Supervisors of the Primary Agricultural and Rural Development Banks throughout the State as Land Valuation Officers. Thus the respondents in the writ appeals were appointed as Land Valuation Officers with effect from 27.12.1984 in the scale of pay of Rs.525-25-775-30-1075-35-1215. The respondents in the appeals along with 34 such persons (totalling 36 persons) were similarly appointed as Land Valuation Officers with effect from 27.12.1984. Prior to the appointment of the respondents in the writ appeals as Land Valuation Officers, two earlier batches of officers were also appointed. The respondents in the appeals were drawing Rs.675/- as basic pay in their previous posts. But on being appointed as Land Valuation Officers, their basic pay was fixed only at Rs.525/-. Hence, pointing out the anomaly, all the 36 persons of the third batch of Land Valuation Officers made a representation to the first appellant on 20.01.1986 and requested for revision of their pay. The said request was made pointing out fact that the Land Valuation Officers appointed in the previous batches were getting a higher basic pay of Rs.865/- and Rs.835/- respectively. Upon considering the said representation of the Land Valuation Officers of the third batch, the second appellant issued an order dated 04.04.1986 re-fixing their basic pay at Rs.625/- giving four increments in the time scale of pay of Rs.525-25-775-30-1075-35-1215. After such refixation, the first appellant bank was making payment of salary to the Valuation Officers of the third batch as per the said fitment. For about 12 years thereafter, a show cause notice came to be served on the respondents on 17.03.1997 for the recovery of the excess payment of salary made on the ground that they were not entitled to such higher pay. Similar show cause notices were also served on the other Land Valuation Officers of the 3rd batch. The said show cause notices came to be issued based on audit objections. Meanwhile the respondents retired on superannuation and orders adjusting excess payment made to them were passed by the first appellant on 12.07.2002 and 01.07.2004 respectively. The respondents submitted representation on 16.02.2008 praying for the removal of the audit objection based on which the excess payment was adjusted and withheld from the retiral benefits. Since no order was passed based on the said representation, the respondents approached this court with W.P.Nos.22596/2008 and 22597/2008 for a direction to the second appellant to consider the proposal said to have been submitted by the first appellant so as to remove the audit objections. This court, by order dated 17.09.2008, disposed of the said writ petitions directing the second appellant to consider the representations of the respondents herein and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. Thereafter, the second appellant passed the impugned order dated 16.12.2008 declining the request of the respondents for the release of the amount withheld from their retiral benefits. Challenging the said impugned order, the above said respondents in the writ appeals filed W.P.Nos.8135 and 8136/2009 contending that excess payment made due to wrong fixation of pay could not be recovered in the absence of any misrepresentation made or fraud played by them leading to the wrong fixation of their basic pay in the cadre of Land Valuation Officers.

(3.) The writ petitions were resisted contending that the service rendered by the Supervisors in Primary Cooperative Land Development Banks could not be taken into account for fitment at appropriate stage in the time scale of pay of Land Valuation Officer under the first appellant bank. It was also contended that the third batch of Land Valuation Officers accepted the appointment as Land Valuation Officers in the first appellant bank only as a fresh appointment, specifically agreeing for the fixation of their pay at the lowest stage in the time scale of pay of Rs.525-25-775-30-1075-35-1215; that therefore the subsequent re-fixation of their pay at a higher level giving four increments was erroneous and that hence the second respondent would be entitled to recover from such employees the excess payment made due to wrong fixation of pay.