WP/28109/2014 of P.Venkatachalam Vs Government of Tamil Nadu on 18 September 2026

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents 1, 3 and 4 and learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent and perused the records.

2. It is the common grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition that the 3rd respondent by the impugned proceedings is seeking to resort to refixation of pay, by holding that the pay fixation made earlier notionally w.e.f. 01.01.2016 and monetary benefits granted from 01.01.2013 were incorrect resulting in excess pay and encashment of Earned Leave Pay and the same should be recovered from the petitioners.

3. Since, it is contended that all the petitioners are similarly placed, for ease of disposing of the present writ petition, the facts relating to the first petitioner are being referred.

4. It is the case of the first petitioner that he was appointed as Fitter Grade-II during the year 1991 and moved to Selection Grade on completion of ten years in the year 2000 - 2001 in the pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000; that as there was no promotional avenue in the post of Fitter Grade-II, he along with other petitioners filed writ petition before this Court for being promoted to the post of Special Artisan; that the aforesaid writ petition was transferred to the Tamil Nadu

Administrative Tribunal and renumbered as TA.No.150 of 1999 and was disposed of by an order dated 19.12.2001; that the Government in order to give effect to the aforesaid order of the Tribunal had issued GO.Ms.No.60 dated 10.03.2006 creating 8 posts of Fitter Grade I; that the petitioners were granted promotion to the said post vide proceedings dated 27.03.2006; and that the petitioner thereafter was promoted to the post of Special Artisan vide GO.Ms.No.383 dated 08.08.2008.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that consequent to the recommendation of one man commission for implementation of 6th pay Commission, the pay of the petitioner was revised and the petitioner was granted monetary benefit w.e.f. 01.04.2013 by the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 30.06.2014.

6. The petitioner contended that on the 3rd respondent granting monetary benefits by proceedings dated 30.06.2014 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 and on the same being forwarded to the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent appears to have made certain remarks on the admissibility on the said pay fixation by its proceedings dated 28.08.2014; that the 3rd respondent acting on the said remarks of the 2nd respondent had issued the impugned proceedings effecting recovery of an amount of Rs.16,000/- from the retirement benefit of the petitioner and also seeking to recover the amount as mentioned in the impugned proceedings from each of the other petitioners in five installments; and that the 3rd respondent had resorted to the above action without issuing any notice to the petitioner(s) which action it is contended as highly illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the Principles of natural justice.

7. Counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent.

8. The 2nd respondent by the counter affidavit filed contended that though the 3rd respondent by his proceedings dated 30.06.2014 allowed the monetary benefits to the petitioner(s) by considering the post of Fitter Grade-II, as not having any promotional avenue; that the petitioners have been promoted from the post of Fitter Grade-II to Fitter Grade-I on 27.03.2006 and thereafter were granted further promotion to the post of Special Artisan in 2008; that the basis for granting of higher grade pay of Selection and Special grade in the lower post to the petitioner considering the lower grade as not having promotional avenue was thus an error which was noticed by the 2nd respondent and had accordingly made its remark in the admissibility report as forwarded by the 3rd respondent.

9. The 2nd respondent further contended that the claim of the petitioners is contrary to the G.Os./clarifications and the Government Policies and thus, the action of the respondent in restricting the Grade Pay to the Grade Pay of Grade - I skilled assistant being the first level promotion post w.e.f. 01.01.2006 is in order.

10. Contending as above, the 2nd respondent seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.

11. No counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents 1, 3 and 4 is filed.

12. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

13. Though, the petitioners had contended that the post of Fitter Grade II does not have promotional avenue, the fact that on the petitioners filing a writ petition before this Court seeking promotion to the post of Special Artisan, and on the said writ petition being transferred to the Administrative Tribunal by this Court and the Tribunal having allowed the said T.A.No.150 of 1999, the petitioner cannot contend that the post of Fitter Grade - II is non promotional post.

14. Further, the Government having regard to the decision of the Administrative Tribunal in TA.No.150 of 1999, had issued order in GO.Ms.No.60 dated 10.03.2006 granting 8 posts of Fitter Grade - I from and out of 15 posts of Artisan Special as as feeder category to the remaining 7 post of Artisan Special and the petitioners having been granted promotion to the post of Fitter Grade - I on 27.03.2006, the claim of the petitioner of the post being non-promotional post and they being entitled for monetary benefits, as per GO.Ms.No.234 dated 01.06.2009 as modified vide GO.Ms.No.338 dated 26.08.2010 r/w. GO.Ms.No.60 dated 10.03.2006 is without merit.

15. Insofar as the claim of the petitioner(s) of they being granted the monetary benefit by the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 30.06.2014 by considering the various G.O’s and as such the 3rd respondent by the impugned proceedings could not have claimed that the pay fixation of the petitioners having been done incorrectly resulting in excess payment and thus the excess pay is to be recovered, firstly, it is to be noted that the 3rd respondent had issued the impugned proceedings to the petitioner(s) by referring to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent by which the 2nd respondent had offered remarks regarding the admissibility of the entitlements granted to the petitioners by the 3rd respondent vide his proceedings dated 30.06.2014. The 3rd respondent instead of offering his explanation to the remarks raised by the 2nd respondent on the admissibility or otherwise of the proceedings, had issued the impugned proceedings to the petitioner(s) claiming that the pay fixation of the petitioners has been done incorrectly and thus, the excess payment made is to be recovered. The issuance of the impugned proceeding to the petitioners by the 3rd respondent straight away on the 2nd respondent issuing admissibility report only goes to show that the 3rd respondent was not sure of himself while issuing the proceedings dated 30.06.2014 relating to pay fixation of the petitioners; had issued the impugned proceedings holding that the petitioners are entitled for paying monetary benefit w.e.f. 01.04.2013.

16. Secondly, the 3rd respondent on receiving the admissibility report from the 2nd respondent had straight away issued the impugned proceedings without even issuing any notice to the petitioners, informing them as to the pay fixation being made incorrectly and calling for their explanation if any, and also on the basis of the said explanation taking a decision as to whether there has been any incorrect pay fixation as remarked by the 2nd respondent or otherwise.

17. On the other hand, the 3rd respondent by the impugned proceedings concluded that there has been excess payment made to the petitioner(s) on account of incorrect pay fixation and thus, the said excess payment made is to be recovered and remitted to Government. The said action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings without putting the petitioners on notice in not only seeking to refix the pay and also effect recovery claiming that the amount mentioned in the impugned proceedings as excess payment would not only amount to 3rd respondent prejudging the issue, but the said action is also in violation of Principles of natural justice.

18. Further, the 3rd respondent while issuing the impugned proceedings also failed to note that the excess payment if any made to the petitioners on account of pay fixation by its proceedings dated 30.06.2014 is not on account of misrepresentation by the petitioners, but was pursuant to proceedings issued by it. That being so, since, the monetary benefit was granted to the petitioner(s) who are Group - C employees, cannot be recovered as per the law declare of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) – 2014 SCC Online 552.

19. Further, the 1st respondent /State by issuing GO.Ms.No.286 Finance (Pension) Department dated 28.08.2018 having specified that the show cause notice may be issued to the concerned employee/pensioner and also in exceptional cases as specified in Para 3 of the aforesaid G.O. which covers employees belonging to Class - III and Class - IV services (Group – C and Group – D services), no recovery can be effected, the impugned proceedings by which the 3rd respondent had sought to recover the alleged excess payment made to the petitioners cannot be sustained.

20. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside. The recovery if any made by the 3rd respondent, pursuant to the impugned proceedings from the petitioner(s) shall be refunded to the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

21. However, in the event of the 3rd respondent intending to initiate any action for refixation of pay by revisiting his proceedings dated 30.06.2014, if so advised, the 3rd respondent shall put the petitioners on notice by calling for their explanation and take further action, by considering the explanation as may be submitted by the petitioner(s) in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 18.09.2026 Speaking order / Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No tsh

To

1. The Government of Tamilnadu represented by the Secretary to Government Finance Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

2. The Principal Accountant General (A&E) Chennai – 600 018.

3. The Executive Engineer Water Resources Development (WRD) Aliyar Basin Division, Pollachi Coimbatore – 642 101.

4. The Assistant Executive Engineer PWD Workshop Sub Division Aliyar Nagar, Pollachi Coimbatore – 642 101.

T. VINOD KUMAR

, J.

tsh Pre-delivery order made in W.P.No.28109 of 2014 18.09.2026.