COMMON JUDGMENT

Challenging the common order passed by the writ court by quashing the recovery order passed by the appellant, these writ appeals are filed.

Brief facts:

2. The 1st respondent in all these writ appeals are the employees are working as Noon Meal Organisers in different schools in the same block. The Government of Tamil Nadu had issued a G.O.Ms.No. 38 Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme dated 30.04.2015 for sanctioning the special increment i.e an stagnation increment who have completed 10 years/20 years/30 years of service. Based on the said Government Order, the appellant herein had sanctioned the financial benefits to all the employees who are working in the same block. Thereafter, on 15.05.2023 the appellant herein had passed recovery order stating reason that they are not eligible for regular increment and even before completion of stipulated service years, they received the monetary benefit. Challenging the said recovery order, the employees have filed writ petitions and the writ court by common order, had set aside the recovery order passed by the appellant herein. Aggrieved by the said common order, these writ appeals are filed.

3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellant has submitted that the 1st respondent/writ petitioners were neither Class D service nor regular Government servants and they are working only under the Puratchi Thalaivar M.G.R Nutritious Scheme. Since the writ petitioners did not reach final stage of pay scale, they should not have been given stagnation pay, which is payable only after completion of two years after completion of 30 years of service, as per G.O.38, Social Welfare Department, dated 30.04.2015.

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the appellant has further submitted that based on the undertaking Bond executed by the writ petitioners/1st respondent in all these appeals to refund the money in the event of any excess payment made to them, they were granted benefits by the appellant. Therefore, the recovery order dated 15.05.2023 is valid in law. The writ court without considering the aspects, by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih case, had set aside the recover order passed by the appellant. Therefore, the common order passed by the writ court is liable to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondents/writ petitioner in these appeals has submitted that the Government has passed the G.O.38, Social Welfare Department, dated 30.04.2015 to give stagnation increment to the noon meal organisers who have no promotional avenue. Pursuant to the above Government Order, the appellant herein had sanctioned increments to the 1st respondents/writ petitioners in all these appeals. Subsequently, passed recovery order on 15.05.2023 based on the audit report for 4 years from 2017-2018 and 2020 to 2021. The writ Court by rightly relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih case, set aside the recovery order passed by the appellant. Therefore, the order of the writ Court is perfectly valid and does not require any interference by this Court.

6. Heard Mr.R.Ramanlaal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. T.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellant and Mr.K.Vasanthanayagan, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and Mr.S.Yashwanth, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 & 3 and perused the materials available on record.

7. Upon hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, the only point that needs to be addressed in these appeals is whether the recovery order passed by the appellant is valid in law. If so, does the order of the writ court require interference by this Court?

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in a catena of decisions has consistently held that if the excess amount was not paid on account of any m