K.SENTHUR PANDIAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of recovery issued by the third respondent in proceeding, dated 28.07.2014, to recover the excess Pay Commission arrears paid to the writ petitioners is under Challenge in the present writ petitions.

(2.) The writ petitioners were initially appointed as Panchayat Clerks and thereafter promoted as Panchayat Secretary. The contentions of the writ petitioners are that the Government issued G.O.(Ms.)No.191, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 29.04.1998 and issued orders revising the pay of the employees on Consolidated Pay/Honorarium/Fixed Pay be allowed to increase the remuneration subject to a minimum benefit of Rs.50/- per annum. After adjusting the three instalment of the interim relief and as such the employees of the Panchayat were also paid arrears from 01.01.1996.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners states that the writ petitioners are also eligible to avail benefits granted in G.O.(Ms.)No.191, dated 29.04.1998. The benefits granted in G.O.(Ms.)No.191 was sanctioned and disbursed to the writ petitioners by the respective Panchayats. Subsequently, there was an Audit objection on the ground that the said G.O. (Ms.)No.191, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 29.04.1998 is not applicable in respect of the permanent employees of the Panchayat, who all are working in a sanctioned post in the regular time scale of pay. In other words, the G.O.(Ms.)No.191, dated 29.04.1998 is applicable only in respect of the employees, servicing on Consolidated Pay/ Honorarium / Fixed Pay. Thus, the benefits granted to the writ petitioners are erroneous and amounts to unjust enrichment.