1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN W.P.(MD).No.1734 of 2011 K.Karmegam : Petitioner Vs. The Joint Director, (Formerly designated as District Revenue Officer), Kallar Reclamation, Madurai 625 020. : Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 07.10.2010. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Inbaraj For Respondent : Mr.D.Sasikumar Government Advocate ORDER Heard Mr.R.Inbaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.D.Sasikumar, learned Government Advocate, who takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 2. The petitioner has come out with a limited prayer for a direction to the respondent to consider and dispose of his representation dated 07.10.2010. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he joined as a BT Assistant Teacher in Kallar Reclamation, Madurai and retired from service as Headmaster of Government Higher Secondary School, Vadakampatti. Prior to V pay Commission Recommendation, the scale of pay for the posts of BT Assistant Teacher and Middle School BT Headmaster were same and the said two posts were interchangeable by means of transfer and posting. Thereafter, V Pay Commission fixed the time scale of pay for BT Assistant Teachers and Middle School BT Headmasters in a different scale of pay. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that Rule 4(3) of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 1989, provides for fixation of pay in the officiating post, if the lower post happens to be in higher pay as on 01.06.1988. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.57, Finance (PC), dated 28.01.1991, extending the said benefit to the cases arising after 01.06.1988. As per the said Government Order, pay was fixed for the petitioner as well as for other Headmasters by the respondent. However, the respondent, by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.H1/14628/2002, dated nil.01.2004, has proceeded to pass an order of recovery and reduced his pay on the ground of audit objection. 5. According to the petitioner, similarly placed person, one Mr.A.C.Ramachandran, who was affected by the said order of recovery, challenged the same by filing W.P.Nos.32814 of 2005 before the Principal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Seat of this Court. By order dated 22.02.2006, this Court quashed the impugned order of recovery passed by the respondent on the ground of non – observance of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the petitioner moved this Court by filing W.P.(MD).No.8930 of 2007 challenging the order dated 09.02.2004 passed by the respondent. This Court, by order dated 13.11.2007, quashed the order of recovery dated 09.02.2004 on the ground that before passing the recovery order, no notice was issued to the petitioner. The operative portion of the order dated 13.11.2007 reads as follows:- "In view of the said undisputed facts and having regard to the fact that the recovery order is passed without any notice and the salary having been fixed without any suppression of the fact on the part of the petitioner, the impugned order of recovery cannot be sustained and consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed in terms of order passed in W.P.No.32814 of 2005, dated 22.02.2006." 6. As against the order dated 13.11.2007 made in W.P.(MD).No.8930 of 2007, the respondent herein filed W.A.(MD).No.392 of 2010. A Division Bench of this Court, by Judgment dated 16.07.2010, dismissed the said Writ Appeal Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation on 07.10.2010 seeking to implement the order dated 13.11.2007 made in W.P.(MD).No.8930 of 2007 and the same is pending consideration, and hence, the petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition. 7. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent, on going through the papers annexed in the typed set of papers and the pleadings, submits that a time limit may be given to the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 07.10.2010 and pass orders. 8. Taking into consideration the above circumstances and considering the limited prayer sought for by the petitioner, without adverting into the merits of the case, the respondent herein is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 07.10.2010 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P&A) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Joint Director, (Formerly designated as District Revenue Officer), Kallar Reclamation,Madurai 625 020. +2ccs to MR.R.Inbaraj, Advocate SR.No.10114 +1cc to The Special Govt.Pleader SR.No.10408 ORDER MADE IN W.P.(MD).No.1734 of 2011 25.02.2011 NB PA/15.03.2011/2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/