S SRINIVASAN Vs. DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was serving as a B.T.Headmaster in the Panchayat Union Middle School, Marupally Post, Denkanikottai Taluk, Dharmapuri District. He filed O.A.No.9658/1997 seeking to set aside the order dated 7.4.97 and also the consequential recovery made from his salary. Even at the time of filing of the Original Application the petitioner was 57 years old and would have retired during the year 1998. THE ground taken in attacking the recovery order was that no notice was given before effecting the recovery. THE Tribunal granted an interim stay of the impugned order by its order dated 28.11.97 which was directed to be continued until further orders. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal the matter stood transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.33068/2006. THE respondents have so far not filed any counter affidavit justifying the recovery. Except by stating that excess amount of Rs.44,212/- was to be paid by the petitioner, they have not justified the recovery nor denied the allegation about the non-issuance of the notice. THE Supreme Court had held though not a person may be entitled to get certain amounts paid legally but on equity jurisdiction the Court can grant relief if the fixation was not done due to any misrepresentation. In the judgment Syed Abdul Qadir And Others Vs. State Of Bihar And Others reported in 2009 (3) SCC 475 in paragraphs 58 and 59 the Supreme Court has ordered as follows: