A RENGASAMY Vs. COMMISSIONER THIRUVARANGAM PANCHAYAT UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have stated that having been appointed as Night Watchmen, on different dates, in the various panchayat union schools, they were awarded the basic pay taking into account the respective dates of their appointments. Pursuant to the Government order, in G.O.Ms.No.107, dated 5.2.1987, the persons who had completed 5 years of service were directed to be brought into the regular establishment. Accordingly, the petitioners were regularized in the posts in which they were working with consequent benefits in pay fixation. Subsequently, in the year 1994, G.O.Ms.No.85, dated 8.2.1994, came to be passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu, wherein it was decided that the contingent staff who had been appointed prior to 1.6.1981 and who had completed 10 years of continuous service from the date of their appointments should be brought into regular service. While so, the respondent had passed the impugned order directing the petitioners to reimburse the amounts received by them. In such circumstances, the petitioners had filed an original application in O.A.No.7214 of 1995, which has been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.27300 of 2006.

(2.) NO reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent.

(3.) PER contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent had submitted that the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court had passed an order, dated 28.9.2007, in W.P.No.(MD) No.8164 of 2006, filed by some of the petitioners in the present writ petition challenging an order, dated 5.5.2006, issued by the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Thiruvarankulam, Pudukottai District, ordering the recovery of certain amounts paid to the petitioners therein, alleging that excess payments had been made to them. In the said order, dated 28.9.2007, the impugned order, dated 5.5.2006, had been quashed, since no opportunity had been given to the petitioners therein. This Court had held that the petitioners were not liable to refund any amount pursuant to the impugned order as the excess payment alleged to have been made was not due to their fault. However, it was observed in the said order that the quashing of the said impugned order would not prevent the respondents from giving a proper opportunity to the petitioner before deciding the matter afresh, in the manner known to law. Therefore, he prays that a similar order may be passed in the present writ petition.