M UBAIDUR REHMAN Vs. CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER VELLORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER herein filed O. A. No. 6623 of 1997 on the file of the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal challenging the order of the first respondent dated 9. 7. 1997 wherein recovery has been ordered. The said original application has been transferred to the file of this Court and renumbered as wp. No. 32171 of 2005.

(2.) THE facts leading to filing of this writ petition are as follows: THE petitioner was originally appointed as an Elementary school Headmaster with effect from 23. 7. 1966. He was promoted as B. T. Assistant on 11. 8. 1983. He was further promoted as P. G. Assistant on 16. 8. 1985. In the year 1989, in G. O. Ms. No. 666 Finance (Pay Commission) Department dated 27. 6. 1989, Government of Tamilnadu has issued revised pay scales. As per Rule 4 (3) of the Tamilnadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1989, as far as the government servants are concerned, if the pay of any Government servant in the officiating post is lower than what would have been received in the substantive post, the pay has to be refixed giving the benefit of Rule 4 (3) of the said rules for the officiating post. Applying this rule, in the year 1995, the petitioner's pay has been fixed in the scale of Rs. 2000/ -. To say in other words, the petitioner's pay has been fixed to giving special grade pay by applying the said Rule. Subsequently, by the impugned order of the first respondent dated 9. 7. 1997, the same has been cancelled. Challenging the same, the original application has been filed, which is transferred, renumbered and posted before this Court.

(3.) AS per the contention of the learned Senior Counsel, for the benefit of Rule 4 (3) of the said Rules, the petitioner submitted an application dated 10. 3. 1995. Basing on the application made by the petitioner, the authorities, without going into the Rules, passed an order fixing his pay in the special grade of Elementary School Headmaster. Prima facie, this is an irregularity, because at the time of making the application, he was working as a P. G. ASsistant. If at all the P. G. ASsistant post can be considered as an officiating post or higher post, prior to that he was working as the b. T. ASsistant from1983 onwards. AS such, if at all the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of Rule 4 (3) of the said Rules, that can be only with reference to the post of B. T. ASsistant and not with reference to Elementary School headmaster which he was holding prior to the post of P. G. ASsistant. AS such, the recovery ordered by the first respondent is well within the Rules.