IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 19.10.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.No.17775 of 2007 D.Chelladurai .. Petitioner vs 1.The Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 3.The Commissioner, Pachayat Union, Rettiarchatiram, Dindigul District. .. Respondents The Original Application No.1992 of 2004 had been filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and after abolition of the Tribunal, the same was transferred to this Court and renumbered as Writ petition seeking relief to call for the records connected with the impugned order Na.Ka.No.1022/04/A1 dated 31.3.2004 passed by the third respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner ... Mr.R.Rengaramanunam For Respondents ... Mr.V.Subbiah Special Govt. Pleader O R D E R This writ petition has been filed to call for the records connected with the impugned order Na.Ka.No.1022/04/A1 dated 31.3.2004 passed by the third respondent and quash the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The petitioner was appointed as Electrician Grade II in Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board by an order dated 5.4.1997 of the Executive Engineer TWAD Board. He was employed to maintain the water supply and power pumps and hand pumps in Reddiar Chathiram Panchayat Union in the then Madurai District. The Government took up the policy decision to transfer the maintenance of the power pumps of the Panchayat Unions from TWAD Board to the Panchayat Unions itself in terms of G.O.1837, Rural Development Department dated 29.11.1982. While he was an employee of the TWAD Board, he was under the control of the Panchayat Union, the third respondent herein. 3.In such circumstances, the petitioner was absorbed in Panchayat services. The Government issued G.O.Ms.136, Rural Development Department, dated 19.7.1999 for counting the service of the employees who are absorbed in Panchayat service from TWAD Board for the purpose of giving increment and pension. The third respondent granted selection grade on completion of 10 years of service and Special Grade on completion of 20 year of service with effect from 1.6.1999 and monetary benefits were paid accordingly. However, there was an audit objection stating that G.O.Ms.No.136. Rural Development Department dated 19.7.1999 provides for counting services for the purpose of pension only and not for any other purposes. Hence, the third respondent passed an impugned order Na.Ka.No.1022/04/A1, dated 31.3.2004 for recovery of benefits that was given to the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 8.12.2000. Hence, the petitioner filed Original Application No.1992 of 2004 (W.P.No.17775 of 2007) to quash the impugned order dated 31.3.2004. While ordering the notice of motion on 13.7.2004, the Tribunal granted interim stay. 4.No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. 5.Heard both sides. 6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 31.3.2004 was passed without hearing the petitioner and the same was passed blatant violation of principles of natural justice. However, he further submits that in the case of Fitter, who are absorbed in Panchayat Union service, Tamil Nadu Government passed G.O.Ms.No.6, Rural Development Department dated 22.1.2009 for counting the services rendered in TWAD Board for the purpose of granting of Selection Grade and Special Grade. Hence, the impugned order is bad. 7.The learned Special Government Pleader has made his submission on the basis of instructions that the impugned order https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is based on G.O.Ms.No.136 Rural Development Department dated 19.7.1999. 8.I have considered the submissions made on either side. 9.The facts are not in dispute. 10.The petitioner joined as Electrician Grade II in TWAD Board in the year 1977. He got absorption in Panchayat Service in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1837, Rural Development Department dated 29.11.1982 to transfer the maintenance of the power pumps of the Panchayat Unions from TWAD Board to the Panchayat Unions itself. Accordingly, he was absorbed in the Panchayat services. The transfer of the petitioner to Panchayat Services is the question before the Tribunal. In such circumstances, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.136, Rural Development Department dated 19.7.1999. The relevant portion in paragraph 3 of the said G.O. is extracted hereunder: "In the circumstances the Government direct that the period of service of the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board staff prior to absorption in Panchayat Union/Government service shall be counted for purpose of increment and pension only". 11.From the reading of aforesaid G.O., it could be seen that it was adhoc measure pending decision in Original Application No.2683 of 1988. Based on the same, one could not come to the conclusion that the Government has taken the final decision not to count the services rendered in TWAD Board for the purpose of counting Selection Grade and Special Grade to the employees, who were absorbed in Panchayat Service form TWAD Board. In the meantime, the third respondent granted Selection Grade on completion of 10 years of service and Special Grade on completion of 20 years of service by order dated 8.12.2000 and granted monetary benefits. The same was sought to be recovered from the petitioner by the impugned order dated 31.3.2004 passed by the third respondent. The said impugned order is passed based on the Audit objection. Before passing the impugned order, the petitioner was not heard and the audit objection was also not furnished to the petitioner. 12.It seems that the Audit party proceeded based on G.O.Ms.No.136 permitting to count the service for the purpose of increment and pension only and not for any other purpose. In any event, as stated above, the third respondent was not correct in passing the impugned order without hearing the petitioner and without furnishing the copy of the audit objection. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Furthermore, the absorption in Panchayat service is not as per the request of the petitioner. It is pursuant to the policy decision of the Government for absorbing the persons from one department to another department. In such circumstances, the same could not cause prejudice to the employees who were transferred from one department to another department. Apart from that, had he continued his service in TWAD Board, he would have got Selection Grade after completion of 10 years of service and Special Grade after completion of 20 years of service. In fact, the third respondent granted Selection Grade and Special Grade belatedly by the order dated 8.12.2000. Even the same was sought to be recovered by the impugned order dated 31.3.2004 without giving any notice to the petitioner. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that the impugned order is bad and illegal and the same is liable to be quashed. 13.The learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly contended that G.O.Ms.No.6 Rural Development Department dated 22.1.2009 also governs this case. In the said G.O. it is stated that the service of the Fitters of TWAD Board could be counted for the purpose of Selection Grade and Special Grade pay on their absorption in Panchayat Union. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar cla To 1.The Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The Commissioner, Pachayat Union, Rettiarchatiram, Dindigul District. +1 cc to Government Pleader SR 64224. +1 cc to R.Rengaramanujam, Advocate SR 63927. W.P.No.17775 of 2007 MRD(CO) dd 23.11.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/