IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.10.2024 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN W.P.Nos.4419 & 4423 of 2020 and W.M.P. Nos.5225, 5228, 5232 &5237 of 2020 D.Nethra ....Petitioner in W.P.No. 4419 of 2020 E.Jaya ....Petitioner in W.P.No.4423 of 2020 Vs

1. The Government of Tamilnadu represented by Principal Secretary to Government Finance (PC) Department Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

2. The Director of Rural Development, and Panchayat Raj Department Panagal Buildings, Saidapet Chennai 600 015.

3. The District Collector, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.

....Respondents in both W.Ps PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the file of the 4^th Respondent in Na.Ka.No.16554/2017/Pa3 dated 14.10.2019 in so far as petitioner in concerned and in Na.Ka.No.16554/2017/Pa3 dated 27.11.2019 and all consequential orders and quash the same and direct the respondents to refund any reduced or recovered amount to the petitioner.

In both W.Ps For Petitioners : Mr.M.Ravi For R1 : Mr.Azizulla Khan Government Advocate For R2 to R4 : MR.M.Muthusamy Government Advocate COMMON ORDER The instant Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the fitment as well as the recovery. Both the petitioners are appointed as Typists, Grade III in the Panchayat at Tiruvannamalai District, as per the orders in Na.Ka.No.10839/2009/PA3-37 dated 23.07.2009 of the District Collector.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, initially the petitioner's pay was fixed at Rs.5200 + 2400 (GP) in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Revised Sale of Pay Rules 2009, issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu in GO (Ms.) No.234 Finance (PC) Department dated 01.06.2009. He would further submit that, meanwhile the petitioners were posted as Assistants and therefore, they have given representations to the Government to regulate their pay in accordance with G.O.(Ms).No.340 Finance (PC) Department dated 26.08.2010.

3. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the Government, on considering the request of the petitioners, has regulated their pay by implementing G.O.Ms.No.340, by raising their pay with factor 1.86. However to deny their legitimate pay fixation, the 2^nd respondent issued instruction to the 3^rd respondent and based on the instruction, 3^rd respondent has issued an order of recovery and also withdrawing the revised pay fixation and in support of his submissions, he relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in Civil Appeal No.11527 of 2014 and hence prayed to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge

4. The learned Government Advocate would vehemently submit that, fixation of pay is essentially an executive function, ordinarily undertaken by an expert body like Pay Commissions and whose recommendations are entitled to a great weight and binding on the Government. It is his further submission that, the pay fixation was made in favour of the petitioner erroneously, as G.O.M.S.No.340 is only in respect of those who appointed initially on the contractual basis and subsequently recruited through TNPSC. Whereas the petitioner was directly appointed by TNPSC. Therefore, G.O.Ms.No.340 is not applicable and hence prayed for dismissal of this petition.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the either side submissions.

6. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, contains two limps. One is that, the fitment made by the 3^rd respondent is in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.340 which is very well in order. The other limp of the submissions is that the recovery is in contravention to the settled legal principles. Coming to the fitment aspect, while considering the G.O.Ms.No.340, it is only applicable to the persons who have been appointed between 01.01.2006 to 31.05.2009 and joined as Junior Ass