JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition - filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to impugned order No.1/2017 dated 30.10.2017 of the respondent and quash the same.)

The petitioner was appointed as a Water Supply Assistant on 28.03.2008 by the Palamedu Town Panchayat, the sole respondent, on compassionate grounds in place of his father, who had passed away in harness on 18.12.2006, while serving in the same post.

2. G.O.Ms.No.10, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 13.01.2009 fixed the salary of the petitioner at a sum of Rs.5,891/- under proceedings dated 28.01.2009. Thereafter, G.O.Ms.No.234, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 01.06.2009 came to be issued, as per which, the petitioner's salary was fixed at sum of Rs.4,800 – Rs.10,000 with grade pay of Rs.1,300, payable from date of his appointment i.e., from 28.03.2008.

3. Under proceedings dated 30.06.2009, the scale of pay was revised to include grade pay, as a result that the fixation of pay was at Rs.5,200 - 20,200 + 1,900. In 2012 the pay was revised and the petitioner sought and was granted the benefit of such revision. The petitioner has admittedly been receiving the revised pay, as aforesaid, including incentive, from 01.08.2010, uninterruptedly.

4. While this was so, impugned proceedings dated 17.10.2017, 30.10.2017 & 11.01.2018 came to be issued, seeking to recover the amounts allegedly paid in excess to the petitioner, for the period from 01.08.2010 to 30.09.2017from his monthly salary in 40 installments from November, 2017.

5. The petitioner's contentions in regard to the impugned order are that:

(i) the order has been passed without prior notice / show cause notice (SCN),

(ii) impugned proceedings refer to an audit objection that was not made available to the petitioner,

(iii) the revision was made at the instance of the State, and unilaterally, and finally,

(iv) that the petitioner, a Grade D employee would be severely inconvenienced by virtue of the proposed recovery. In this context, he relies upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (2015 (4) SCC 334) (in short ‘2015 Whitewasher’s case’) and the guidelines for recovery set out therein.

6. At the time of admission of this writ petition, the petitioner had sought and obtained an interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to impugned order on 11.01.2018, in force till date.

7. Mr. Veera Kathiravan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for Mr. K.S. Selvaganesan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the sole respondent straightaway places for my appreciation, proceedings of the Director of Municipalities in Na.Ka.No.1222/2020/A3 dated 07.10.2020, modifying the impact of the impugned orders substantially.

8. Proceedings dated 07.10.2020 adopts and applies the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Whitewasher's case (supra), as a result that the recovery of the amounts allegedly paid in excess to the petitioner till 01.10.2020, has been dropped. However, the re-fixation of the salary remains, with effect from 01.10.2020.

9. As regards the submission of the petitioner relating to violation of the principles of natural justice, the respondent would argue that the petitioner is, in fact, receiving the salary sanctioned as per entitlement in G.O.338, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 26.08.2010.

10. According to him, a clarification had been provided under Letter bearing R.O.C.No.45529/F3/2010-1 dated 01.10.2012, that constitutes an aberration as it deviates from the terms originally granted to the employees, including the petitioner, and is liable to be eschewed in toto. It is for this reason that proceedings came to be issued in 2015 in letter No.45529/F3/2010 dated 21.05.2015 by the Commissioner of Municipal Administration reversing the erroneous stand taken by the authorities in 2012.

11. The payments sanctioned in the interim i.e., between 2