Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
R. Sreekumar – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu and Others – Respondents
W.P. (MD) No. 10527 of 2022, W.M.P. (MD) Nos. 7656, 7662 of 2022
Decided On : 08-03-2024
Pension Proposal - Government Employee - Fundamental Rules, G.O.Ms. No. 62, G.O.Ms. No. 286 - The court discussed the application of Fundamental Rules, G.O.Ms. No. 62, and G.O.Ms. No. 286 in the context of the pension proposal and recovery of excess payment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a government employee, challenged the order returning the pension proposal and the consequential order for recovery of a sum of Rs. 33,92,045/- issued by the second and seventh respondents, respectively.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the petitioner's service history, the application of Fundamental Rules, G.O.Ms. No. 62, and G.O.Ms. No. 286, and the legality of the orders. The court found that the petitioner was not entitled to the selection grade and special grade in the cadre of B.T. Assistant before completion of 10 and 20 years, respectively, and that the recovery orders were impermissible in law due to the timing of their issuance.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's entitlement to selection grade and special grade, the application of Fundamental Rules, G.O.Ms. No. 62, and G.O.Ms. No. 286, and the legality of the recovery orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the selection grade and special grade before completing the requisite years of service, and that the recovery orders were impermissible in law due to the timing of their issuance.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the order returning the pension proposal, directed the forwarding of the revised pension proposal, and set aside the order seeking recovery of a sum of Rs. 33,92,045/-. The writ petition was partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the second respondent Accountant General in No. P11/1/11128945/ADK/27 dated 21.04.2022 (returning the pension proposal of the petitioner) and the consequential impugned proceedings issued by the 7th respondent Headmaster in Na. Ka. No. 22/2022 dated 07.05.2022 (ordering recovery to the petitioner to a tune of Rs. 33,92,045/- and quash the same and direct the 2nd respondent to process the pension proposal of the petitioner dated 30.03.2022 as forwarded by the 7th respondent vide proceedings in Na. Ka. No. 22/2022 dated 31.05.2022 and disburse the pension and other retirement benefits admissible to the petitioner within a time frame as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent herein on 21.04.2022 and the consequential order passed by the seventh respondent on 07.05.2022.
(A) Facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:
1.1 The petitioner herein was initially appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in an Aided Middle School on 02.06.1982. He was later appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in a Government High School on 28.12.1989. Considering the past services of the petitioner in the Aided School, he was conferred with selection grade in the cadre in Secondary Grade Teacher with effect from 16.11.1992. On completion of 20 years as Secondary Grade Teacher, the petitioner was conferred with special grade scale of pay with effect from 16.11.2002.
2. The petitioner was promoted as B.T. Assistant in Tamil vide proceedings dated 23.12.2005. Since the pay scale of the petitioner in the cadre of Secondary Grade Teacher (special grade) was higher than the pay scale as B.T. Assistant, the petitioner was permitted to retain the scale of pay which is more beneficial to him.
3. The petitioner was conferred with selection grade in the cadre of B.T. Assistant on 30.09.2009 and special grade of B.T. Assistant on 30.09.2019. The petitioner was promoted as P.G. Assistant on 18.11.2019. The petitioner attained superannuation on 31.05.2022. The second respondent under the impugned order dated 21.04.2022 had returned the pension proposal citing the following reason:
(ii) Revised pay fixaion made in pg.74/Vol.II based on G.O.62 dated 09.03.15 is not in order, since the G.O.62 has not come into force. Hence, revised pay fixation may be made in SR and recovery of excess paid Pay & Allowances may be reviewed. After effecting necessary corrections on the above lines, SR and pension proposal may be retransmitted to this office.
4. On 07.05.2022, the seventh respondent had passed the consequential impugned order wherein the pay scale of the petitioner was revised for the period between 16.11.1992 to 30.04.2022 and a sum of Rs. 33,92,045/- was directed to be remitted to the Government account. These two orders are under challenge in the present writ petition.
(B) Submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner are as follows:
5. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner had contended that when the petitioner was promoted as B.T. Assistant, his basic scale of pay was Rs. 5500-175-9000. However, he was drawing salary in the pay band of Rs. 5900-200-9900 in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher (special grade). Since he was drawing more pay than the basic pay in the prom
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....
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.
Stale and belated claims cannot be entertained, and benefits as directed by a Full Bench order shall be extended only to parties before the Court, with no fresh writ petitions entertained after a spe....
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 main legal principle established in the judgment is the application and interpretation of Government Order No.25 P & AR Department dated 23.03.2015 to rectify pay anomalies between seniors and ju....
The importance of affording an opportunity of hearing before passing orders and the need for consultation with the petitioner's parent department.
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
