M GANAPATHY Vs. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has stated that, as a Secondary Grade qualified Teacher, he was appointed as a Higher Grade place Headmaster from 28.8.1958 to 31.5.1960. Later, he was promoted as a Secondary Grade Assistant and posted as Elementary School Headmaster from 1.6.1960 to 28.7.1961, in Mohanur Panchayat Union. THEreafter, the petitioner has been serving in various posts in different capacities till he was promoted as a Tamil Pandit at the Government Higher Secondary School, Nedugula, Nilgiris District, on 1.12.1993. Since the petitioner had been promoted and as he had served as an Elementary School Headmaster, from 22.6.1973 to 13.7.1976, he was entitled for all the benefits that had accrued to the said post after the introduction of the revised pay based on the recommendations of the Vth Pay Commission. THErefore, the petitioner's pay was fixed in the cadre of Special Grade Elementary School Headmaster, with effect from 1.6.1988. However, the third respondent, by his impugned order R.C.No.300, dated 28.11.1995, had ordered recovery of the excess amount alleged to have been paid to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred an original application in O.A.No.7801 of 1995, before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, which has been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.16829 of 2006.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the impugned order, dated 28.11.1995, had been passed without any notice being issued to the petitioner and without giving him an opportunity to present his case. Further, the impugned order has been passed, arbitrarily, without stating the reasons for the passing of the said order.

(3.) IN view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order of recovery passed by the second respondent cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The impugned order had been passed without notice to the petitioner and no opportunity had been given to him to put forth his case. Further, there was no misrepresentation or fraud committed by the petitioner based on which the re-fixation of his pay scale was done. Further, the petitioner had retired from service on his attaining the age of superannuation.