R BALAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is stated that the petitioners have been serving in the post of Special Grade Pharmacist, without any blemish. The first petitioner was selected for being appointed as a Pharmacist and he had joined service on 22.2.1967. The second petitioner was selected for appointment to the said post and he had joined service on 17.12.1966. Similarly, the third petitioner was selected for the said post and he had joined service on 8.12.1967 and the fourth petitioner had joined service as a Pharmacist on 24.12.1967. The petitioners had claimed Selection Grade and Special Grade scales of pay after completion of 10 years and 20 years, respectively, based on the recommendation of the Vth Pay Commission, dated 27.6.1989, and G.O.Ms.No.304, dated 28.3.1990. By an order passed on 27.8.1990, the revised scale of pay was fixed for the petitioners. However, all of a sudden, the impugned order, dated 15.6.1995, had been passed ordering the recovery of the amounts paid to the petitioners, in accordance with the revised scale of pay. The Medical Officer, Government Leprosy Control Centre, Periyakulam, the third respondent, in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.63/Aka/95, dated 15.6.1995, ordered the recovery of the amounts, as mentioned therein, from the petitioners.

(2.) THE petitioners have further stated that the impugned proceedings, dated 15.6.1995, had been passed without any notice being issued to the petitioners and without giving them an opportunity to present their cases. Further, the impugned orders have 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 third respondent cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The impugned order had been passed without notice to the petitioners and no opportunity had been given to them to put forth their cases. Further, there was no misrepresentation or fraud committed by the petitioners based on which the re-fixation of their pay scales was done. Further, all the petitioners had retired from service on their attaining the age of superannuation.