IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 05.06.2024 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN W.P.No.8405 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.9364 and 9366 of 2024 S. Sridharan S/o. Selvaraj ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Registrar General, High Court, Chennai-104.

2. The Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore.

3. The Special Judge, Special Sub-Court for MCOP cases, Cuddalore.

4. The Principal District Judge, Cuddalore.

5. The Secretary to the Government, Home (Courts) Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondents in connection with the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent in D.O. No.312/2023 dated 11.09.2023 addressing to the 3^rd respondent, ordering of refixation of pay and recovery of Rs.7,83,945/- from the petitioner, based on the impugned Audit para objection issued by the Hon'ble High Court, Audit in ROC. No.105514/A/2022/IAW dated 26.07.2023 and quash the same and direct the respondents to fix the salary of the petitioner at Rs.72,700/- as on 01.04.2023 and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits.

For Petitioner : Mr. K. Venkatramani, Senior Counsel for Mr.M. Muthappan For Respondents : Mr. K. Umesh Rao [for R1 to R4]

Mr. D. Gopal, Government Advocate [for R5]

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.)

The writ on hand has been instituted questioning the validity of the audit objection raised by the Audit Wing, which was communicated by the learned Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore to the learned Special Judge, Cuddalore.

2. Learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents would raise a preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable, in view of the fact that no recovery order has been passed. Inter-departmental communication would not provide a cause for institution of writ proceedings.

Thus, the writ petition is to be rejected.

3. Mr.K.Venkatramani, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Muthappan, appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that objections were received from the petitioner based on the audit objection. Therefore, the cause arose. Once the objections are submitted by the petitioner/employee and the Authorities have not considered the objections submitted for recovery of the excess salary paid from the year 1998, the writ petitioner could able to establish a cause and the writ petition is entertainable.

4. We are of the considered opinion that audit objection has been raised, admittedly. As per the audit objections, the pay fixation made in the year 1998 was found erroneous and consequently, the Authorities are asked to recover the excess salary paid to the writ petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an objection. The objection is pending before the learned Principal District Judge for consideration and to pass an order. Admittedly, the learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore has not passed orders. However, we are not inclined to drive the petitioner to go back to the Authorities, which would result in multiplicity of litigation. In the event of passing an order of recovery, the petitioner would be back again by filing another writ petition before this court. In service matters, longevity of litigation would affect the carrier of the employees. Therefore, we are inclined to consider the case on merits.

5. The petitioner was appointed as Senior Bailiff on compassionate grounds, due to retirement of his father on medical invalidation grounds. Pay fixation was done by the Establishment based on the pay Rules and Government Orders in force. The audit objection reveals that an individual pay, on moving to the post of "Selection Grade Junior Assistant" as on 03.10.1998 has incorrectly been fixed at Rs.4,100 + 35PP+203PP in the pre- revised time scale of pay of Rs.4000-100-6000 taking into account combinedly th