Public excerpt

WP(MD)/15851/2023 of Subramanian. A Vs The Director - Madras High Court (Madras High Court)

Court: Madras High Court (Madras High Court) Case: HCMD010719702023 Parties: WP(MD)/15851/2023 of Subramanian. A Vs The Director Pages: 14 Characters (full): 17266

Full judgment text and the official PDF are available after sign-in. This page shows an excerpt for discovery and research previews only.

WP.(MD).No.15851 of 2023
 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 22.03.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
W.P.(MD)No.15851 of 2023
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.13261 and 13265 of 2023
1.A.Subramanian
2.S.Mu.Pudathy
3.P.Pitchaikannu
4.S.Irulachi
5.R.Esakkidurai
6.S.Kannan
7.S.Premma Nayakam
8.M.Panndarasamy
9.N.Sivasubbiramaniyan
10.M.Murugan
11.R.Ramachandiran
...  Petitioners 
Vs.
1.The Director,
   Sericulture Department,
   Asthampatti,
   Salem – 636 007.
2.The Assistant Director,
   Sericulture Department, 
   Tenkasi, 
   Tenkasi District.   
 
... Respondents 
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of 
India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for 
the records on the file of the respondents in connection with the 
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP.(MD).No.15851 of 2023
impugned orders passed by them vide proceedings in Se.Mu.No.
4102/Aa/2011 dated 24.03.2014 by the second respondent and in 
Na.Ka.No.11438/M3/2020 dated 22.07.2021 and quash the both as 
illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to 
reimburse the recovered amount and thereby direct them to pay 
the  petitioner's  salary  in  accordance  with  6th and  7th pay 
commission. 
For Petitioners 
 : Mr.G.Thalaimuthurasu
For Respondents 
: Mr.M.Siddtharthan
  Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This Writ Petition  has been filed for issuance of a Writ of 
Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned proceedings in 
Se.Mu.No.4102/Aa/2011  dated  24.03.2014  by  the  second 
respondent and in Na.Ka.No.11438/M3/2020 dated 22.07.2021 and 
to direct the respondents to reimburse the recovered amount and 
thereby direct them to pay the petitioner's salary in accordance 
with 6th and 7th pay commission. 
2.All  the  petitioners  joined  as  Farm  Labourers/Sericulture 
Workers in the second  respondent Department in the year 1985. 
They have completed more than 10 years of service as daily wage 
workers.  As  per  G.O.Ms.No.22,  Personal  and  Administrative 
Reforms Department dated 28.02.2006, the Government directed 
2/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP.(MD).No.15851 of 2023
that  the  services  of  the  daily  wages  employees  working  in  the 
Government units of the various Departments who have rendered 
10  years  of  service  as  on  01.01.2006  to  be  regularized  by 
appointing them in the time scale of pay of the post in accordance 
with  the  service  conditions  prescribed  for  the  post  concerned. 
Based  on  the  first  respondent's  proposals,  the  Government 
regularized  the  service  of  520  Casual  Daily  Wage  Labourers 
including the petitioners, relaxing Rule 4 of the Service Rules and 
created super numeric posts up to the date of retirement/date of 
death in the revised scale of pay of Rs.2,500-5,000/- + Grade Pay 
Rs.500/-  with  effect  from  23.02.2010  vide  G.O.(Rt)No.25, 
Handlooms,  Handicrafts,  Textiles  and  Khadi  Department  dated 
23.02.2010.  Based  on  this  G.O.,  the  petitioners  service  were 
regularized into Special Time Scale of Pay Workers vide second 
respondent's  proceedings  dated  28.04.2010.  Under  such 
circumstances,  the  second  respondent  vide  proceedings  dated 
24.03.2014 initiated recovery proceedings against the petitioners 
stating that they were overpaid with dearness allowances during 
the period from 01.04.2004 to 31.08.2011. 
3/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP.(MD).No.15851 of 2023
3.Accordingly, listing the petitioners name all the amounts as 
mentioned in the orders were recovered from the petitioners in an 
arbitrary manner. All the petitioners are Basic Service Employees 
and the increment drawn were not because of their mistake and the 
mistake  is  fully  attributable  to  the  employers,  who  erroneously 
calculated the dearness allowance. This Court in a batch of Writ 
Petitions  in  W.P.(MD)Nos.14977,  15614  to  15616  of  2011  dated 
24.11.2023 has held that Sericulture

…