Madras High Court
WP/29097/2014 of S.Natarajan Vs The Superintending Engineer on 29 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN
WP No. 29097 of 2014
CNR: {HCMA011175462014}
and M.P.No.1 of 2014
S.Natarajan,
S/o.D.Shanmugam Gounder, Door No.3, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Melvadugankuttai Village, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Tamilnadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Vellore and Thiruvannamalai Circle, No.6, 15th East Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Vellore 632
2. The Chief Audit Officer,
Tamilnadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, 31, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk, Chennai 600
3. The Accounts Officer,
O/o.The Chief Engineer, Internal Audit
Wing,Tamilnadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, No.6, 15th East MainRoad, Gandhi Nagar, Vellore 632 006
4. The Managing Director
Tamilnadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, 31, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk, Chennai 600
..Respondent(s)
calling for the records connected with the impugned order dated 24.10.2014
issued by the first respondent vide his proceedings No.A2/4267/Ko.Pay fixation/Ve Thi Va/Ve/2014 and the subsequent recovery order vide his letter No.A2/4267/Pay fixation / Ve.Thi.Va./Vellore/2014-1 issued by the first respondent and quash the same and further direct the first respondent to implement the orders dated 23.01.2014 issued by him.
For Petitioner(s):
Dr.Father Xavier Arul Raj Senior counsel for M/s. V.R.Appaswamee For Respondent(s):
Mr.S.Ravindran, Senior Counsel
for Ms.Mekhala .S
Standing Counsel for TWAD
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The present writ petition has been instituted challenging the refixation of pay and the consequential recovery of excess salary paid to the writ petitioner.
2. The writ petitioner was appointed as Rig Helper on 14.03.1989 in the scale of pay of Rs.505-10-555-15-615-20-795-25-945 with usual allowances. The pay of Rs.505 during the relevant point of time was applicable to technical posts of Grade-II. Subsequently, the respondent Board passed B.P.No.547 dated 04.12.1997 wherein the revised pay has been indicated for the post of Helpers / Rig Helpers. Further, the Board redesignated the post of Rig Helper as Assistant Driller with the scale of pay of Rs.950-1500/- and the present incumbents holding the post of Rig Helpers with ITI qualification be accommodated in the re-designated post of Assistant Driller. Accordingly, the writ petitioner was re-designated as Assistant Driller and the pay was fixed at Rs.950-1500/-. The said position has not been disputed by the respondent Board. The scale of pay of Rs.950-1500/- is the corresponding scale to the scale of pay of Rs.505-945 fixed for the writ petitioner in the appointment order dated 14.03.1989. However, subsequent scale of pay has been fixed erroneously based on B.P.No.505 dated 12.12.1986.
3. Pertinently, the applicability of Board Proceedings in B.P.No.505 dated 12.12.1986 has to be considered by this Court. The said Board Proceedings deals with technical posts in Grade-I and Grade-II and states that SSLC pass candidates with ITI qualification if appointed in Grade-I technical post will be entitled to draw a scale of pay of Rs.610/- and the SSLC failed candidates if appointed in Grade-II technical post are entitled to draw a scale of pay of Rs.505/-. The terms and conditions stipulated in the order of appointment is binding on the employee and the employer. Mere possession of higher qualification will not confer any right to claim higher scale of pay unless the employer grants promotion or refix the pay. Courts cannot grant refixation of pay merely based on the qualification acquired by the employee.
4. In the present case, B.P.No.505 was issued prior to the appointment of the writ petitioner. He was appointed on 14.03.1989 after B.P.No.505 was issued on 12.12.1986 and he was in service during the relevant point of time and more so, such board proceedings will be implemented in terms of the appointment order and post in which the employees are appointed by the Board.
5. At the outset, the order of appointment is to be considered to find out the scale of pay admissible for an employee appointed in a particular post. By citing a Board Proceedings which was issued prior to the date of appointment order, higher scale of pay cannot be claimed. In the present case, the Board issued B.P.No.547 dated 04.12.1987 where the post was re-designated as Assistant Driller with a scale of pay of Rs.950-1500/-. Therefore, the writ petitioner is entitled for the said scale of pay as per B.P.No.547 dated 04.12.1987 and the said pay stipulated in the said board proceedings alone is to be paid to the writ petitioner. In the present case, based on the erroneous fixation, higher pay was granted, which resulted in erroneous refixation of scale of pay.
6. The authorities are competent to refix the scale of pay by correcting the errors at any point of time. No time limit is fixed for the same. Accordingly, the authorities have corrected the error regarding the wrong fixation made in the case of the writ petitioner. However, the recovery order issued at this length of time would result in hardship to the employee since he was working in Group IV post. In the present case, the writ petitioner has retired from service. Therefore, recovery cannot be imposed.
7. In view of the above facts and circumstances, refixation of pay done by the respondent Board stands confirmed. The order of recovery made to recover the excess salary paid to the writ petitioner is set aside. The respondents are directed to settle the terminal and pensionary benefits due to the writ petitioner, if not already paid, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above directions, the writ petition is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 29-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No KST
To
1. The Superintending Engineer, Tamilnadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Vellore and Thiruvannamalai Circle, No.6, 15th East MainRoad, Gandhi Nagar, Vellore 632 006.
2. The Chief Audit Officer, Tamilnadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, 31, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005
3. The Accounts Officer, O/o.The Chief Engineer, Internal Audit Wing,Tamilnadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, No.6, 15th East MainRoad, Gandhi Nagar, Vellore 632 006
4. The Managing Director Tamilnadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, 31, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. KST WP No. 29097 of 2014 29-09-2026