Recovery of excess amounts paid to employees cannot be made if it was not due to their fault, as established by legal precedents.

1. This Writ Petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the third respondent, dated 011. 2003, made in Na.Ka.No.4408/03/A1 and to quash the same and to permit the petitioners to draw the original scale of pay fixed in the year 2001 and for other monetary benefits.

2. It has been stated that the third respondent fixed the revised scale of pay for the petitioners on the basis of the audit report from Rs.4300-100-6000 to that of Rs.4000-100-6000 by the impugned order, dated 011. 2003. The petitioners have been working as Record Clerks in the third respondent temple, in the scale of pay originally fixed, without any avenue for promotions.

3. Based on the representations made by the petitioners, the petitioners had been granted selection grade of pay pursuant to the order, dated 09.07.1991. However, since the pay scales fixed by various temples in the State of Tamil Nadu, for persons holding similar posts, were not uniform in nature, the question of re-fixation of pay scales, in terms of the Fifth Pay Commission recommendations, had arisen for consideration. Hence, a committee had been constituted, to suggest modifications in the pay scales of employees employed in the various temples in the State of Tamil Nadu, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.257, Tamil Development, Cultural and Charitable Endowments Department, dated 10.06.1998.

4. In view of the recommendations made by the said committee, the pay scales had been revised, with effect from 01.07.1997. With regard to the petitioners, who were holding the post of Record Clerks, the third respondent had directed the fixation of their pay, with effect from 01.07.2001, in the selection grade pay of Rs.4300/-. The petitioners were also granted the arrears of selection grade scale fixed in the year 2001. However, without issuing any prior notice to the petitioners, the impugned order had been passed based seeking to recover the amounts paid to the petitioners, in accordance with the revised pay scale. The impugned order is said to have been passed on certain audit objections. However, no opportunity had been given to the petitioners to put forth their case. In such circumstances, the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent, it has been stated that the writ petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable, either in law or on facts, since the petitioners have suppressed the material facts. Further, the petitioners have not availed the provisions of Section 21 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, by exhausting the alternative remedies available under law. The second and the third petitioners have already given a written request, on 112. 2003, to the third respondent to recover the excess salary received by them from their Provident Fund. Since the petitioners are not having the necessary educational qualifications for their promotion as Junior Assistants, they had not been promoted to the said post and only those persons who are having the necessary educational qualifications were covered under G.O.Ms.No.257, Tamil Development, Cultural and Charitable Endowments Department, dated 10.06.1998. Since the petitioners did not possess the minimum educational qualifications, as prescribed therein, the said Government Order is not applicable to them and therefore, they are not entitled to the benefits of the said Government Order. Further, they do not have the prescribed experience, as well as the educational qualifications, as per G.O.Ms.No.257, Tamil Development, Cultural and Charitable Endowments Department, dated 10.06.1998.

6. It has been further stated that the pay of the petitioners, from 01.07.2001, in the selection grade, at the rate of Rs.4300/-, had been fixed by mistake and the same had been pointed out in the audit report. As pe