Recovery of excess payments from government employees is barred if made after five years, or from Class III/IV employees, or near or after retirement, as such recovery is arbitrary and violates principles of equity under Article 14.

COMMON ORDER

In all these writ petitions, the respective petitioners are challenging the impugned communications of the 1^st, 3^rd and 4^th respondents seeking to recover excess increment paid to the petitioners.

2. The operative portion of the impugned G.O.(4D) No.11 dated 29.06.2012 of the 1^st respondent is extracted hereunder: -

3. The writ petitioners were originally appointed as Anganwadi workers and later observed as Village Health Nurse in accordance with the provisions of Tamilnadu Public Health Subordinate Service Rules.

4. It is stated that the 2^nd respondent had appointed 536 candidates from out of the eligible qualified Anganwadi Workers, in accordance with their seniority as Multipurpose Health Workers (Female). Among the 536 Multi-purpose Health Workers (Female) about 236 Candidates had crossed the age limit of 40 years at the time of their initial appointment. But however at the time of selection to the post of Multi-purpose Health Workers (Female) by the 2^nd respondent they were within the age limit of 40 years and also at the time of completion of training for the post of Multi-purpose Health Workers (Female) they were within the age limit of 40 years. Therefore, the 2^nd respondent had sent proposals to the 1^st respondent for the relaxation of the Rules relating to the age at the time of appointment.

5. Therefore, by virtue of G.O.Ms.(4D) No.11, Public Health and Family Welfare Department (No.2) Department dated 29.06.2012, the Government had relaxed the age criteria under the aforesaid Rules.

6. Though the 236 Multi-purpose Health Workers (Female) including the petitioners had joined on various dates from 02.02.2004 to 18.07.2007 in accordance with their seniority, by virtue of the aforesaid G.O., their services were regularised only with effect from the date of issuance of aforesaid G.O., i.e., with effect from 29.06.2012 and not from the date of their initial appointment.

7. In accordance to the aforesaid G.O.Ms.(4D) No.11, Public Health and Family Welfare Department (No.2) Department dated 29.06.2012, the 3^rd and 4^th respondents passed the impugned orders for recovery of the increment paid to the petitioners from the date of initial appointment till 29.06.2012, when their services were regularised by the aforesaid Government order.

8. Though these petitioners are Class -I employees as per the aforesaid rules, they are junior rank employees. In a series of cases, this Court has taken a consistent view that recovery should not be made from Class III and Class IV employees. Though, all these petitioners are categorised as Class I employees under the aforesaid Rules, they are Class III employees (Group C) under the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016).

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, has held as under:

“14. In this context, reference may also be made to the decision rendered by this Court in Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India (1994) 2 SCC 521 , wherein this Court observed as under: (SCC pp.525-26, para 11)

"11. Although we have held that the petitioners were entitled only to the pay scale of Rs 330-480 in terms of the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission w.e.f. 1-1-1973 and only after the period of 10 years, they became entitled to the pay scale of Rs 330-560 but as they have received the scale of Rs 330-560 since 1973 due to no fault of theirs and that scale is being reduced in the year 1984 with effect from 1-1-1973, it shall only be just and proper not to recover any excess amount which has already been paid to them. Accordingly, we direct that no steps should be taken to re