Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
S. Sathiya – Petitioner
Versus
The Chief Education Officer, Dharmapuri – Respondent
W.P. No. 14035 of 2019, W.M.P. Nos. 14103, 26248 of 2019
Decided On : 15-11-2022
Pay Scale - Revision of Pay - G.O.Ms. No. 57, Finance (Pay Cell-II) Department, dated 28.01.1991 - Rule 4(3) of Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules-1989 - G.O.Ms. No. 210/P&AR(S) Department dated 11.03.1987 - Recovery of Excess Pay - Undertaking by Employee
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the re-fixing of her pay scale by the authorities without providing her an opportunity to defend her case. The petitioner joined as a Teacher in 1988 and was subsequently promoted to various positions. The authorities issued a show cause notice and passed final orders re-fixing the pay scale, which the petitioner challenged.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the revision of pay was done after providing an opportunity to the petitioner and based on the applicable Pay Rules and Government Orders. The Court held that the petitioner's undertaking to accept any errors in pay fixation binds her, and there is no infirmity in the order passed by the competent authorities.
Issues: The main issue was the unilateral re-fixing of the petitioner's pay scale without providing her an opportunity to defend her case. The Court also considered the applicability of various Government Orders and the petitioner's undertaking regarding the recovery of excess pay.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the revision of pay was done in accordance with the applicable Pay Rules and Government Orders after providing the petitioner an opportunity to defend her case. The Court also emphasized the binding nature of the petitioner's undertaking regarding the recovery of excess pay.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merits, and the Court found no infirmity in the order passed by the competent authorities re-fixing the pay scale. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
ORDER :
1. The order, re-fixing the scale of pay of the petitioner by way of correction of mistake, is put under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The petitioner states that she joined as a Teacher in Harur Panchayat Primary School on 08.07.1988. On 23.06.2003, she was appointed as Primary School Headmistress and she was further promoted to the post of Middle School Headmistress. Thereafter, on upgradation of the School, in which the petitioner was serving, she was posted as a B.T. Assistant.
3. The petitioner states that her pay scale was fixed as Rs. 6500-200-10500, for which, revised fixation was given as Rs. 15600-39100 and Grade Pay Rs. 5400/-. The second respondent issued an order of recovery to recover the excess amount of salary, based on an audit objection. The petitioner filed W.P. No. 779 of 2015, challenging the unilateral decision taken by the authorities without providing opportunity to her. This Court remanded the matter back to the authorities competent to issue a show cause notice and to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to defend her case and thereafter take a decision and pass final orders. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the respondent issued a show cause notice setting out all the details including correct fixation of pay, as applicable to the petitioner, in notice dated 02.08.2018 and in response, the petitioner submitted her detailed representation establishing her case regarding fixation of pay and revision of pay. The authorities competent considered the explanation and passed final orders in proceedings dated 18.02.2019, which is under challenge in the present writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms. No. 57, Finance (Pay Cell-II) Department, dated 28.01.1991 would be applicable, which speaks about re-fixation of pay of a senior on par with the junior whose pay has been re-fixed under Rule 4(3) of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1989. Relying on the said Government Order, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that, as per the Government Order, the revision of pay effected through the impugned order is untenable and therefore, the order is to be set aside.
5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents objected the said contention, by stating that the Government issued a clarification letter vide Letter No. 26204/Pay Cell/2011-1, dated 18.05.2011, with reference to the order issued in G.O.Ms. No. 57, dated 28.01.1991. Accordingly, the said Government Order cannot be applied in the case of the petitioner for grant of revision of pay.
6. Regarding the fixation of pay of the petitioner, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit elaborately and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:
S. No. Post Held Scale of Pay Pay com. Service Total Service
From To Years Months Days
1 Ordy.Gr.Sec.Gr. Teacher 1200-2040 5th 08.07.98 07.07.98 10 0 0
4500-125-6000 6th
2 Sel.Gr.Sec.Gr.Teacher 5300-150-8300 6th 08.07.98 22.06.03 4 11 15
3 Ordy.Gr.Pry School HM 5300-150-8300 6th 23.06.03 22.07.07 4 1 0
PB2-9300-34800+G.P.4500 7th
4 B.T. Asst. [Tamil] PB2-9300-34800+G.P.4600 7th 23.07.07 08.01.08 0 5 16
5 B.Ed Gr.HM PB2-9300-34800+G.P.4700 7th 09.01.08 16.12.11 3 11 8
6 B.T. Asst. [Tamil] PB2-9300-34800+G.P.4600 7th 17.12.11 Till date 7 7
The binding nature of an employee's undertaking regarding the recovery of excess pay and the authority of competent authorities to re-fix pay scale based on applicable Pay Rules and Government Orders....
The court ruled against arbitrary recovery of excess salary, emphasizing protections for employees and the necessity for compliance with procedural justice.
Acceptance of conditions at the time of revision precludes challenging the revision and recovery. Scope of government orders must be considered in determining applicability to specific positions.
The judgment established the principle that recovery of excess payment can be ordered unless extreme hardship is caused to the employee. It also highlighted the importance of public money and the rel....
The court ruled that recovery of higher pay from employees without prior notice and due process violates principles of natural justice, emphasizing the necessity of protecting vested rights.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that entitlement to selection grade and special grade is subject to completion of requisite years of service, and recovery orders issued within one....
Recovery cannot be initiated beyond the period of five years from the allegedly offending event.
The court upheld the right of the petitioner to challenge salary recovery orders, requiring a review of objections raised.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
