N.Gomathi,W/O.Prabhushankar v. The District Revenue
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.11.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM and W.M.P.No.20879 of 2018 N.Gomathi
...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Elementary Education Officer, Erode District, Erode.
2.The Assistant Aided Elementary Education Office, Nambiyur, Erode District.
Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.459/A1/2015 dated 16.02.2017 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mahesh For Respondents : Mr.R.Neethi Perumal Government Advocate 1/6
ORDER
The order of recovery dated 16.02.2017 is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.
2.The petitioner joined as Junior Secondary Grade Teacher (Mathematics) on temporary basis on 26.10.2004 at Panchayat Union Elementary School, Molapalayam, Nambiyur Block, Erode District. Initially she was appointed on consolidated pay salary and subsequently, her services were regularized as Secondary Grade Teacher w.e.f. 01.06.2006 and the petitioner was brought under the regular establishment in the time scale of pay. 3.The scale of pay as applicable was fixed w.e.f. 01.06.2006 to the petitioner. The fixation of pay was found to be erroneous by the Local Fund Audit authorities who in turn raised an objection and based on the audit objection, the impugned order of refixation was issued in proceedings dated 16.02.2017, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2/6
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the refixation of pay and the recovery was issued without any Show Cause Notice to the writ petitioner and thus, the order is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 5.Any order affecting the right of an employee is to be passed only after affording an opportunity to employee concerned. The scale of pay fixed in favour of the writ petitioner was revised to her disadvantage and consequential recovery was imposed. While doing so, the authorities must give an opportunity to the writ petitioner to defend her case and in the present case, the respondents are unable to establish that an opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to submit her explanation or objection. This being the factum, the order impugned passed by the 2nd respondents in proceedings dated 16.02.
2017, is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent is directed to issue a Show Cause Notice to the writ petitioner setting out all facts and details, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
and thereafter, the 2nd respondent shall consider the case of the writ petitioner on merits and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of twelve weeks thereafter.
6.Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
01.11.2022 Index : Yes Internet : Yes Speaking order : Yes ssr 4/6
To 1.The District Elementary Education Officer, Erode District, Erode.
2.The Assistant Aided Elementary Education Office, Nambiyur, Erode District.
5/6
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
ssr and W.M.P.No.20879 of 2018 01.11.2022 6/6