A ELANGOVAN Vs. CHIEF ENGINEER GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, who are colleagues working in the same cadre as Road Inspectors in the Highways Department have filed this writ petition challenging the common order of recovery passed by the 2nd respondent in Proc.No,27/2004-B6, dated 28.12.2004, as per the direction of the 1st respondent.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioners that subsequent to the implementation of the VI Pay Commission by the Government with effect from 01.01.1996, the pay was revised to all the employees of the State Government. Subsequently, an One Man Commission was appointed to rectify the pay anomalies and consequent to the recommendations of the One Man Commission, certain revisions were carried out in the pay in respect of certain categories. The Finance Department also issued orders to obtain revised option to come over the revised scales of pay and accordingly, the petitioners were given 2nd option for revision of pay. 2a. n the proceedings dated 05.02.1999, the Finance Department of Government of Tamil Nadu has categorically stated that he question of recovery of excess pay drawn during the period from 01.01.1996 to 31.08.1998 based upon the revised option exercised by the teachers/employees does not arise since the revised orders have been given monetary benefit from 01.09.1998 only and therefore, the question of recovery does not arise in the case of the petitioners. Moreover, it is the case of the petitioners that after a lapse of five years from the revised option, the respondents have issued the impugned order stating that the pay granted from 01.01.1996 to 31.12.1996 was objected by the Audit parties and accordingly the recovery was imposed. 2b. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order of recovery on the grounds that it has been issued to them without any show cause notice and an opportunity to defend their case and that the question of recovery of arrears paid with effect from 01.01.1996 does not arise as per the orders of the Finance Department dated 05.02.1999, as the Audit Parties have not gone into the Government Orders before raising objections.

(3.) IT is seen that the petitioners were employed as Road Inspectors in the Highways Department and their revised pay has been fixed with effect from 01.01.1996, based on the VI Pay Commission. Accordingly, the revised pay was granted to the petitioners with effect from 01.01.1996 and subsequently, an One Man Commission was appointed to rectify the pay anomalies and consequent to the recommendations of the One Man Commission, certain revisions were carried out in the pay in respect of certain categories. The Finance Department also issued orders to obtain revised option to come over the revised scales of pay and accordingly, they were given second option for revision of pay. IT is further seen that as per the proceedings dated 05.02.1999, the Finance Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu has clarified that the question of recovery of excess pay drawn during the period from 01.01.1996 to 31.08.1998 based upon the revised option exercised by the teachers/employees does not arise since the revised orders have been given monetary benefit from 01.09.1998 only.