C. MUTHU Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the proceedings of the respondent dated 18.12.2017 issued in Na.Ka.No.408/2017/A1, the present Writ Petitions have been filed.

(2.) According to the petitioners, they were all appointed regularly to the sanctioned regular vacancies of Over Head Tank Operator, Electrical Work Assistant and Motor Operator respectively in the years 1999, 2001 and 2012. The said posts come under the category of Group D and subsequently, they were all brought under the consolidated pay by the respondent after the completion of 3 years from their initial service. While so, the Government of Tamil Nadu implemented the One Man Commission Recommendations vide G.O.Ms.No.338, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 26.8.2010 by categorizing the Trade Posts as Supervisor, Special Artisan, Skilled Assistant Grade I, Skilled Assistant Grade II and other Trade Posts (unskilled) and revising the pay structures. Subsequently, the Government in his letter dated 13.01.2011 clarified that the above said Government Order would be applicable to the skilled and unskilled employees working in the Local Bodies also. Since the posts of Over Head Tank Operator, Electrical Work Assistant and Motor Operator respectively come under the category of other trade posts, the pay of the petitioners were correctly fixed in terms of G.O.Ms.No.338 w.e.f. 1.1.2006 as Rs. 5200-20200+1900 by the respondent by his proceedings dated 8.4.2013 in Na.Ka.No.79/2012 and the petitioners were paid the difference of arrears of pay also. Subsequently, their pay was further revised as per the aforesaid Government Order. The learned Counsel further submitted that all of a sudden, based on audit objection for the year 2016-17, the respondent in his proceedings dated 18.12.2017, passed the order of cancellation of earlier pay fixation dated 8.4.2013 and consequently, ordered to recover the alleged excess pay paid to the petitioners. Now the grievance of the petitioners is that without giving any notice calling for explanation from the petitioners, the impugned order came to be passed. Therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned respective Government Counsels appearing for the respondent.