P. ARUMUGAM Vs. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short point that arises for consideration herein is as to whether the petitioners are liable to repay the excess amount, which was paid to them by way of bonus increment by the department, without any fraudulent act or misrepresentation from their side, that too without any notice to them.

(2.) THE few facts, which are relevant for consideration herein are as follows : The petitioners 1, 3 and 4 were appointed as Higher Grade Teachers with Secondary Grade Qualification on 01.09.1962, 4.9.1963 and 30.10.1965 respectively and they were promoted as Headmaster of Elementary School on 1.10.1965, 4.9.1964 and 12.6.1966 respectively. The second petitioner was initially appointed as Headmaster of Elementary school and posted at Veraiyur on 11.7.1961. Thereafter, they were awarded selection grade and special grade in the cadre of Headmaster of elementary school. While so, the Government issued GO.Ms.No.562 Finance Department dated 28.09.1998, in and under which, the persons who have completed 30years of service in the same post and ten years service in the Special Grade, can be granted one bonus increment. Pursuant to the same, all the petitioners were, by the order of the second respondent dated 24.8.1999, granted one bonus increment and the petitioners retired from service, after attaining the age of superannuation. Thereafter, the second respondent passed the impugned order dated 04.06.2002 to recover bonus increment granted to the petitioners. Challenging the same, the petitioners approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A.No.5182/2002 and the same was subsequently transferred to this Court and renumbered as the present writ petition.

(3.) THE issue involved herein is already dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Division Bench and single judge of this Court on more than one occasion. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the authority reported in : 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 (Sahib Ram V. State of Haryana and others) observed that for upgraded pay scale given due to wrong construction of relevant order by the authority concerned without any misrepresentation by the employee, the employee cannot be held to be fault and under the circumstances the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the employee.