IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 25.02.2010 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR W.P. No.39026 of 2006[T] [O.A.No.7932/1999 ] R. Manoharan .. Petitioner Vs The Regional Accounts Officer (Audit), Agriculture Department, Pudukottai .. Respondent Prayer: Original Application No.7932 of 1999 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench to call for the records relating to the orders of the respondent dated 12.07.1999 issued in Ref. No.1551/97 and the Order dated 26.07.1999 issued in the Ref. No.1551/97 and quash the same and further direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to retain the increment sanction for passing the Account Test for Subordinate Officers Part I. For Petitioner .. Mr. R. Muthu Kannan for Ms. P. Saraswathy For Respondent .. Mr. S. Sivashanmugam Government Advocate ORDER Original Application No.7932 of 1999 has been filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench to call for the records relating to the orders of the respondent dated 12.07.1999 issued in Ref. No.1551/97 and the Order dated 26.07.1999 issued in the Ref. No.1551/97 and quash the same and further direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to retain the increment sanction for passing the Account Test for Subordinate Officers Part I. Since the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal was abolished, the O.A. was transferred and numbered as Writ petition. 2. The petitioner challenged the order of recovery of the increment, on the ground that no notice was given to the petitioner before ordering the recovery. The petitioner, while working as Typist, was granted one increment for passing Account Test for Subordinate Officers Part I in the year 1987. After the period of 13 years, without giving an opportunity or a show cause notice to him, the increment given for passing the Account Test was cancelled. Hence, the Original Application has been filed in the year 1999. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. Heard Mr. S. Sivashanmugam, learned Government Advocate. 4. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sahib Ram -vs- State of Haryana and others (1995 Supp. 1 SCC 18) recovery cannot be ordered as there was no fraud or mis-representation alleged on the part of the petitioner for grant of higher scale of pay. In any event no notice was issued before passing the order of recovery. For all these reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs. Sd/ Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Regional Accounts Officer (Audit), Agriculture Department, Pudukottai +1 C.C. to Mr.R.Muthukannan, Advocate – SR No.12611 +1 C.C. to Government Pleader – SR No.13396 W.P. No.39026 of 2006 25.02.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/