SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Mad) 2034

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.S. SUNDAR, S.SRIMATHY, JJ.
G. Arokia Rajasekar – Appellant
Versus
The Director of School Education, Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.A(MD) No. 511 of 2022
Decided On : 13-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant:S. Visvalingam, Advocate. For the Respondents: S. Shaji Bino, Special Government Pleader.

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 relevance of relevant government orders in determining entitlement to pay scale and grade pay.

Headnote:

Selection Grade - Teacher's Pay Revision - [G.O.Ms.No. 303, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 11.10.2017] - [Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the G.O.Ms.No. 303, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 11.10.2017, and its implications on the petitioner's pay scale and grade pay. The court also referred to G.O.Ms.No.234, G.O.Ms.No.235, and clarification letters related to the implementation of the 6th pay commission revision. The judgment highlighted the importance of public money and the recovery of excess payment made to employees.]

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a teacher, sought to quash the order revising the granting of Selection Grade and Special Grade, and to direct the respondents to confirm the previously granted grades. The respondents revised the granting of grades, ordered recovery of excess payment, and the petitioner challenged this in the writ petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioner is not entitled to payment which is unjust enrichment of tax payers' money and dismissed the writ petition. The court also ordered recovery of the excess salary granted to the petitioner.

Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's entitlement to the granted grades, the revision of pay scale, and the recovery of excess payment. The court also considered the petitioner's classification under Group C and the implications of relevant government orders on the petitioner's pay scale.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of public money and the recovery of excess payment made to employees. It held that recovery alone can be set aside only if extreme hardship is caused to an employee. The court also considered the petitioner's classification under Group C and the relevant government orders in determining the entitlement to pay scale and grade pay.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and ordered recovery of the excess salary granted to the petitioner. It also directed 50% of the recovery to be made from the petitioner and 50% from the erring officials.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent against the order of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.10808 of 2020, dated 24.03.2022.)

S. Srimathy, J.

1. This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the order passed in Writ Petition W.P.(MD)No.10808 of 2020, dated 24.03.2022.

2. The prayer in the writ petition W.P.(MD)No.10808 of 2020 is for Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order, dated 25.08.2020 of the 3rd respondent and to direct the respondents to confirm the Selection Grade already granted in the proceedings, dated 14.11.2017 and Special Grade in the proceedings, dated 18.06.2020, of the District Educational Officer, Musiri.

3. The facts as stated in the affidavit filed along with the writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed by the Correspondent of St. Joseph High School, Verkottu, Ramanathapuram Taluk as Secondary Grade Teacher on 19.08.1999. Then, the petitioner was transferred to LFRC Primary School, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District and joined duty on 12.06.2008 and continued till 16.07.2009. Then through Employment Exchange, the petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in the Panchayat Union Primary School, Thirupampuram, Thiruvarur District and joined duty on 17.07.2009. Though the petitioner was serving as Secondary Grade Teacher, the petitioner has passed B.A., Degree in the year 2001, M.A., Degree in the year 2003 and B.Ed., Degree in the year 2013. The petitioner was sanctioned incentive increments for acquisition of M.A., and B.Ed., Degree.

4. The petitioner was granted Selection Grade in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher as per proceedings, dated 14.11.2017 of DEO and Special Grade in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher as per proceedings, dated 18.06.2020 DEO by counting the services right from the beginning i.e., 19.08.1999. However, the respondents have revised the granting of Selection Grade and Special Grade vide the impugned order dated 25.08.2020 by counting the service period in the Government Primary School alone and refixation was ordered and the petitioner was directed to refund the excess payment made. The above said refixation and recovery order has been issued after issuance of show cause notice and the petitioner has submitted his reply to the same. The petitioner has approached the Joint Director of School Education, Chennai, under Right to Information Act wherein the Joint Director has replied that the services rendered in by the Secondary Grade Teacher in the Aided School can be counted along with the service rendered in by the Secondary Grade Teacher in the Government School, provided if the services are without any break.

5. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was serving in the Aided School from 19.08.1999 to 16.07.2009 and in the Government School from 17.07.2009 to till date without any break. The petitioner also submitted that a similarly placed person namely, A.Mihavel, who is also serving as Secondary Grade Teacher in Marungapuri Panchayat Union School, Tiruchirapalli District, who also served previously in the Aided Private School, was granted Selection Grade and the same was not revised.

6. The further contention of the petitioner is that even assuming and presuming that the fixation of pay is wrong, it is not the mistake of the petitioner and it is the mistake of the administration for which the petitioner cannot be punished. The petitioner also submitted that the petitioner comes under the Group C (Class 4) and according to White Washers case recovery cannot be ordered, if any employee is coming under Group C and Group D categories.

7. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition stating that the petitioner completed the service of 10 years on 18.08.2009 including the services rendered in Aided Schools and becomes eligible for award of selection grade with effect from 19.08.2009, i.e., after 01.06.2009. As per instructions contained in various Government Orders and clarification issued,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top