R DEENADAYALAN Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions filed by the very same petitioner were heard together and shall be governed by the present common order.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as B. T. Assistant vide order dated 2 4. 6. 1980 in R. C. No. 3620/1980, pursuant to which he joined service on 30. 6. 1980. The petitioner was promoted as P. G. Assistant (Economics) by order dated 19. 1. 1990 in R. C. No. 22582/1990. However, the petitioner found that his junior one V. K. Velayudam had been promoted as P. G. Assistant in 1983 itself. Thereafter the petitioner made several representations seeking promotion from the date when his junior was promoted but, such representations having been rejected, he filed O. A. Nos. 4638 of 2001 and 8155 of 2001 claiming promotion from retrospective date and also seniority. Both the original Applications were allowed by the Tribunal by common order dated 3. 7. 2002. The relevant portion of the order is as follows : In the circumstances, the petitioner shall be given notional promotion from 21. 6. 1983 for the purpose of seniority only and that seniority shall be reckoned in the cadre of the post graduate Assistant from that date. The petitioner will be entitled to service benefits as if he has been promoted from 21. 6. 1983, but monetary benefits need not be given to him. In view of his success in o. A. No. 4638 of 2001, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in the other original Application. Hence, O. A. Nos. 4638 and 8125 of 2001 are allowed. His seniority shall be reckoned from 21. 6. 1983. The same date shall be taken into account for the purpose of seniority in the cadre of Post Graduate Assistant and Promotion to the post of Headmaster of Higher Secondary School.

(3.) PURSUANT to the aforesaid common order, the second respondent passed order in Na. Ka. No. A1. 484/2002 dated 21. 1. 2003 indicating that seniority of the petitioner as P. G. Assistant would be fixed with effect from 21. 6. 1983 and further indicating that his further promotion as Headmaster would be given on the basis of such seniority. However, according to the petitioner, he was not given the monetary benefits nor he was given the benefit of selection grade in the post of P. G. Assistant from 21. 6. 1993, when he must be taken to have completed 10 years. The petitioner was promoted as headmaster by order dated 24. 1. 2003, but selection grade service benefits as p. G. Assistant were not given. According to the petitioner, he was entitled to other service benefits by taking into account his seniority from 21. 6. 1983 and the pay should have been re-fixed with effect from 19. 1. 1990, when he was actually promoted, by taking into account the notional promotion for the period from 21. 6. 1983 to 19. 1. 1990. The petitioner has thereafter filed the present W. P. No. 17742 of 2004 for a direction to refix the pay scale in the post of P. G. Assistant with effect from 21. 6. 19 83 ad to pay monetary benefits with effect from the actual date of promotion i. e. , 19. 1. 1990. In the meantime, the petitioner has opted to go on voluntary retirement on 31. 5. 2004. The petitioner had also filed WPMP. No. 20717 of 2004 for payment of pensionary benefits and on the assertion that the pensionary benefits would be given, the petitioner withdraw such miscellaneous petition. Subsequently, the petitioner received Order dated 24. 1. 2005 in No. A. G. (Aande)P 09/5/060-1439/v. R. /2004, wherein it was indicated that certain amount had been paid in excess from 1. 6. 1988 till 31. 5. 2004, which were to be recovered. In such order it was also indicated that his net gratuity was Rs. 1,93,300/ -. Such order was challenged by the petitioner in W. P. No. 6051 of 2005. The said writ petition was disposed of by the following order : By proceedings dated 24. 01. 2005, the first respondent has merely stated that excess payment towards pay and Allowance is to be recovered, which payment is said to have been made between 01. 06. 1988 to 31. 05. 2004. The said statement has been made while sanctioning the gratuity payable to the petitioner. Since no details have been mentioned nor was the petitioner given any opportunity before ordering such a recovery, it is imperative that petitioners representation dated 07. 02. 2005 is considered by the first respondent and a detailed order passed as to nature of recovery to be made. With that view, the first respondent is directed to consider the petitioners representation dated 07. 02. 2005 in accordance with law and on merits after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The first respondent shall carry out the above said exercise within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, opportunity of personal hearing was given and a further order was passed on 23. 5. 2005 indicating that amount is recoverable as the petitioner drawn amount higher than his entitlement. This order has been challenged in w. P. No. 25244 of 2005.