JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records connected with the proceedings/orders passed by the 1st respondent in Lr.No.AG(A&E)/Legal cell/WP 26002/2007/IV/486 dated 4.7.2008 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same in so far as it reduced the scale of the petitioner from Rs.5000-150-8000 to 4300-100-6000 and consequently reduced the DCRG and other final settlement amounts and quash the same and further direct the respondents to settle all petitioner's entire final settlement amounts in the scale of pay Rs.5000-150-8000 and consequentially allow pension.)

1. The petitioner joined service in the Public Works Department (PWD) on 22.06.1971 as Work Inspector Grade II and was provincialised on 22.06.1976.

2. The Tamil Nadu Public Works Department Employees’ Association came to file O.A.No.2113 of 1992 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) seeking pay protection for various categories of employees who were in Grade posts under a Scheme called Flexible Complementing Scheme (Scheme). Pursuant to, and giving effect to the directions of the Tribunal dated 14.09.1992 in the aforesaid O.A., the Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Finance had issued G.O.Ms.No.250 dated 21.03.1994 (G.O.) providing a revised scale of pay to certain cadres of employees upon completion of 10 years of service.

3. The G.O. took note of the observations of the Tribunal, that it would be more equitable if the pay of the post to which the concerned employees had been advanced prior to 01.06.1988, be taken into account and corresponding, revised scales allowed. Thus, employees who had completed 10 years in the cadres of Work Inspector Grade I, Grade II and Grade III as on 01.06.1988 were to be treated as holders of selection grade/special grade of the respective grades without the benefit of advancement to the next higher grade after 01.06.1988.

4. The orders of the tribunal were given effect to by the PWD in letter No.C4 (4)/12303/90 dated 18.12.1996 and the petitioner came under the beneficial sweep of the same from the date of G.O.Ms.No.250 as made applicable to the PWD on 18.12.1996 till date of superannuation on 31.10.2006.

5. While this is so, on the anvil of the petitioner's retirement and like a bolt from the blue, an order came to be passed on 09.10.2006 by the Accounts Officer, Office of the Accountant General, unilaterally revising/reducing the scale of pay of the petitioner from 5000-150-8000 to 4300-100-6000 and directing the recovery of certain amounts stated to have been over-paid to the petitioner.

6. Order dated 09.10.2006 came to be challenged by way of Writ Petition in W.P.No.26002 of 2007 and by order dated 29.08.2007 a learned single Judge of this Court set aside the same and allowed the Writ Petition on the sole ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The third respondent, i.e., the Accountant General, arrayed as R5 before me, was given liberty to initiate action afresh after affording opportunity to the petitioner.

7. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner dated 27.03.2008 by the Senior Accounts Officer, Legal Cell, stating that the Accountant General, at the time of verification of the benefits that the retiring petitioner was entitled to, noticed an irregularity that was sought to be corrected by way of the show cause notice. The irregularity was that the petitioner had not, in fact, completed 10 years of service as per the date of cut-off stipulated under G.O.No.250, as the leave availed by the petitioner in excess of a period of three years had been omitted to be taken into account in computing the period of 10 years.

8. Thus the petitioner's service of 10 years would, in fact, be regularised only in 1989 as against 1986, as required by G.O.No.250. This is an admitted position and the respondents have clearly missed the bus insofar as they had omitted to take into account the leave