STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. T.CHINNAIYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr.S.Thirumavalavan, learned counsel who takes notice on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) The writ appeal has been filed by the State challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petition and thereby setting aside the impugned order which sought for recovery of annual increment paid to the respondent.

(3.) The factual matrix behind filing of the writ appeal is as under:- The respondent herein was appointed as a Casual Labour in the office of the Deputy Director, Exotic Cattle Breeding Farm, Eachankottai, Orathanadu, Thanjavur District in the year 1987. Subsequently, it appears that the Government by issuing G.O.Ms.No.116, Animal Husbandry (AH6) Fisheries Department dated 7.5.1997 sanctioned 826 posts of Animal Husbandry Assistants and out of which 465 posts were intended to be filled by the persons, who have a direction by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in their favour and 361 posts were intended to be filled up by the casual labour, who had put in 10 years of service. The grievance of the respondent herein was that though he had put in 10 years of service by the time, the G.O. was issued, his services were not regularised despite the fact that the services of his juniors were regularised. However, it appears that as per the direction of the Tribunal in the Original Application filed by him, his representation was considered and he was absorbed into regular establishment by proceedings dated 16.6.1999. It is the further case of the first respondent herein that though he was granted one increment as on 1.7.2000, thereafter, he was not granted any increment and on his further representation and the direction of this court in a writ petition filed by him, his services were regularised by issuing G.O.Ms.No.117 dated 28.8.2008 prospectively, with a clause therein that annual increment shall be sanctioned only on completion of one year from the date of regularization and as a consequence, the monetary benefit enjoyed by him prior to actual regularization was sought to be recovered in 36 monthly instalments, which constrained him to file the present writ petition.