K DAMODARAN Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed O. A. No. 6610 of 1995 before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai seeking to quash the order of the second respondent in G1/pen. 15/93 dated 20. 10. 1994 and refund the amounts recovered from the petitioner's retirement benefits and pay all the arrears due to the petitioner. The said O. A. has been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W. P. No. 25911 of 2006.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner as put forth by him before the Tribunal was that initially he was appointed as a Police Constable on 30. 4. 1954. Later, he was promoted as Head Constable on 19. 6. 1976. He has completed ten years in the post of Head Constable on 19. 6. 1986. On completion of ten years in the said post, the petitioner along with similarly placed persons made representations praying for grant of selection grade. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, 'q' Branch C. I. D. , Madras-4 passed orders creating 11 posts of Head Constable (Selection Grade) and directing the movement of 11 Head Constables, including the petitioner to the Selection Grade. Later, by letter dated 27. 8. 1991 the petitioner was allowed to move to the Selection Grade with effect from 19. 6. 1986 and consequential pay and allowances were also allowed to the petitioner. When the pay scale was revised, the petitioner's pay was also fixed in the revised Selection Grade scale with effect from 1. 6. 1988. The petitioner retired from service on 30. 6. 1993.

(3.) THE further case of the petitioner was that after retirement, he has received all the retirement benefits due to him, except the commuted value of pension which was not paid to him. Hence, he has made a representation to the authorities concerned for payment of the aforesaid amount. However, by an order dated 8. 8. 1994, the second respondent directed recovery of a sum of Rs. 11,428/- from the petitioner by reducing his pension at the rate of Rs. 55/- per month. It was followed by another communication from the second respondent dated 20. 10. 1994. The said order is under challenge in this Writ Petition.