← Library
Madras High CourtWP(MD)/5183/2020allowed

B.Sitharthan v. The Vice Chancellor

2022-12-12Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani6 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12.12.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P.(MD) No.5183 of 2020 and WMP Nos.4515 & 4516 of 2020 B.Sitharthan ... Petitioner -vs1.The Vice Chancellor, Tamil University Thanjavur.

2.The Registrar, Tamil University Thanjavur.

3.The Assistant Director Local Fund Audit Tamil University Thanjavur.

... Respondents Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writs of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records comprised in Na.Ka.A1/1085/2018 dated 13.06.2019 and the consequential order in Na.Ka.A3/2418/2019 dated 28.06.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent

and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to principles of rule of law and consequently direct the respondents to release Rs.7,14,668/- deducted towards excess pay liable to be paid to the petitioner as gratuity. For Petitioner :

Mr.K.Prabhakar For Respondents :

Mr.Ragatheeshkumar for R1& R2 for M/s.Isaac Chambers Mr.S.P.Maharajan for R3

ORDER

Challenging the impugned orders dated 13.06.2019 and 28.06.2019 and for a direction to the respondents to release the deducted amount towards excess pay to the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed.

2.The case of the petitioner in nutshell is as follows: The petitioner joined in the respondent University on 16.08.1990 as Assistant Computer programmer on consolidated pay. Subsequently his services were regularised with basic pay of Rs.1600-2660. While so on 01.10.1996, the Syndicate passed a resolution thereby reducing the pay of

the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner filed writ petition in WP No. 12719/1996 and the said writ petition was disposed of and the petitioner was paid with the original pay. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted as Selection Grade Assistant Computer programmer on 01.10.1999 and for 18 years he held the said post and in the year 2018, he was promoted as Computer programmer. Since there is no rule with regard to the petitioner's post, the promotion was given as per syndicate resolution as there was no rules prevailing at that point of time. On 01.06.2018, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents seeking revision of basic pay. However, his representation was rejected by refixing the scale of pay for the period from 03.05.2018 till 30.06.2019. The said order further reads that on the basis of the audit objections, the excess salary paid to the petitioner from 01.10.1992 to 02.05.2018 was sought to be deducted, challenging which, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when there is no rule for the post occupied by the petitioner, the promotion and pay was fixed by the resolution of the syndicate. When that be so, the

deduction based on audit objection is not sustainable. He would further submit that no particulars were provided for such deduction/recovery and when there is no fault on the part of the petitioner, the deduction made is in violation of principles of natural justice and hence, prays for interference.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.

5. The issue arises in the writ petition is a mere simpliciter. Initially, the petitioner was appointed on consolidated pay and subsequently he was conferred with permanent status with basic scale of pay and promoted as Assistant Computer Programmer and further promotion was also given as Computer Programmer. The petitioner was also conferred with selection grade. On 30.06.2019, he was allowed to retire peacefully. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner was granted selection grade from 1999 for a period of 18 years and hence, the deduction made is impermissible. If at all the respondents have to recover for the selection grade only from 1999 to 2018, recovering the amount for the

entire period ie., till the retirement, is not sustainable. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to hear the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. The petitioner shall treat the impugned order as a show cause notice to make necessary objections within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the objections by the petitioner, the respondents shall conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate orders and if any excess amount is due to the petitioner, the same shall be disbursed to the petitioner.

6. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 12.12.2022 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes RR To The Assistant Director Local Fund Audit Tamil University Thanjavur.

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

RR 12.12.2022