K VARUNA BABU Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has submitted that he was selected for appointment to the post of Junior Mono Type Casting Attendant, through the employment exchange, and he had joined in service on 5.5.1975. He was promoted to the post of Senior Mechanic in the year, 1978. THE petitioner had completed 10 years of service in the post of Senior Mono Mechanic on 4.5.1988. As such he was eligible to get selection grade scale of pay in the light of the various Government orders in G.O.Ms.No.555, dated 10.6.1985, G.O.Ms.No.841, dated 30.8.1995, and G.O.Ms.No.879, dated 5.9.1986. Accordingly, the selection grade was sanctioned to him by an order, dated 3.1.1989, with effect from 5.5.1988. Thus, the petitioner was given the selection grade scale of pay upto 31.1.1991. However, it was cancelled by the impugned orders of the respondents.

(2.) IN the reply affidavit filed on behalf the respondents, the claims made by petitioner have been denied. It has been stated that the petitioner had been appointed in the selection grade scale of pay of Senior Machanic. However, the pay scale of the petitioner in the selection grade has been wrongly re-fixed. Thereafter, the implementing authority had noticed that the pay was wrongly fixed in the scale of pay of Rs.1320-2040 and hence, it was re-fixed in the appropriate scale of pay of Rs.1200-2040 and the recovery was ordered for excess pay and allowances already paid to the petitioner. The excess payment made to the petitioner was purely due to an administrative error and therefore, there is no violation of the rights vested in the petitioner. Further, as per the provisions contained in Articles 56 and 57 of the Tamil Nadu Financial Code, Volume-I, the excess pay and allowances could be recovered from the petitioner.

(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.