A DHANAPAL Vs. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are Senior Grade Teachers in Valapadi Panchayat Union School, except the fifth petitioner, who is the Head Master. THEy were paid city compensatory allowance pursuant to the recommendation of the VIth Pay Commission from April 1998 to October, 2000. THE Audit party objected that the Valapadi Panchayat Union, where the petitioners are employed does not come under prescribed radius for payment of city compensatory allowance. Hence, the payment made to them are irregular. Based on that, the first respondent passed an impugned order dated 09.11.2000 to recover the city compensatory allowance from the petitioners . THE amount paid to the petitioners is as follows: .................................................................................................. No. Name of Name of C.C.A C.C.A. received T otal the School the Teacher from 4/98 to 10/2000 amount .................................................................................................. 1. Annaimedu A.Ekambaram 180 31 x 180 = Rs.5580/- 2.Chinnama Naickam Pallayam R.Sekar 180 31 x 180 = Rs.5580/- 3. S.Annamalai 180 31 x 180 = Rs.3100/- 4.A.Balakrishnan 180 31 x 180 = Rs.5580/- 5. A.Dhanapal 180 31 x 180 = Rs.5580/-

(2.) THE petitioners filed O.A.No.1720 of 2001 (Writ Petition No,2343 of 2007 against the aforesaid impugned order.

(3.) HOWEVER, more city compensatory allowance was paid by the concerned authorities on their own and it was not made pursuant to any mis- representations by the petitioners. In this regard the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in SAHIB RAM VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18. Para 5 of the said judgment is extracted here-under: