R.V. RAMACHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, FORT ST.GEORGE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the order dated 15.9.2006, wherein the third respondent ordered for recovery of excess of salary and other pensionary benefits and also refix the scale of pay and pension.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as a Comptist on 10.03.1983. The services of the petitioner was regularised in the year 1990 vide G.O.(3D)No.7, Labour and Employment Department from the date of initial appointment with effect from 10.03.1983. After completion of ten years, the petitioner is entitled for selection grade pay. Thereafter, the petitioner took part in the District Office Manual Test during November 1993 and thereafter in the year 1994, he took part in the Accounts Test for Sub-ordinate Officers-Part-I and Department test for Officers in the National Employment Service Manual and the results were published. However, the petitioner's services were terminated since the petitioner failed in Accounts Test for Sub-ordinate Officer Part-I test on 21.08.1994. Against the said termination of service, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Government, wherein the Government had set aside the order of termination and directed reinstatement with regularization of the period of break in service vide G.O.(3D)11 dated 31.08.1995. In compliance to the same, the petitioner was reinstated on 12.09.1995 and he has successfully completed the requisite departmental tests without any pay fixation and on 17.02.2000, he submitted an application for voluntary retirement and he was allowed to retire voluntarily. After five years of his retirement, the third respondent passed an impugned order dated 15.09.2006 informing him that the scale of pay came to be revised on the premise and that he has been extended with irregular pay fixation between 01.09.1998 and 17.02.2000 being fixed at Rs. 5,500/- instead of Rs. 5,300/- on the ground that probation of the petitioner was not satisfactorily completed and ordered recovery of excess amount paid. Aggrieved against the recovery order, the petitioner has filed this present petition.

(3.) Heard Mr. L. Chandrakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. K. Ravi Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.