IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 24.02.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL W.P.No.37161 of 2004 V.Moses .. Petitioner vs 1.The Additional Assistant Elementary Education Officer, Vellakoil, Erode District. 2.The Accountant General,(A&E), Teynampet, Chennai. .. Respondents PRAYER: The writ petition filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent passed in NaKa.No.71/2004/A2, dated 30.01.2004 and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to refund the sum of Rs.83,632/- with interest from the date of eligibility of pension till the date of realization. For Petitioner ... Mr.Veerakathiravan For the first Respondent ... Mrs.C.K.Vishnpriya, AGP For the second Respondent ... Mr.Vijayakumar O R D E R The petitioner has filed this writ of certiorarified mandamus in calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in NaKa.No.71/2004/A2, dated 30.01.2004 and to quash the same and resultantly direct the respondents to refund the sum of Rs.83,632/- with interest from the date of eligibility of pension till the date of realization. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The petitioner joined as Part Time Craft Teacher in unit in the school attached to Vellakoil Panchayat Union at Subramania Gounder Valasu, Kattupalayam Post. His appointment was through the Employment Exchange. After serving as Part Time Craft Teacher, the petitioner got qualified in Technical Teachers Course and also passed in the Technical Examination for the lower grade teachers. He further completed his course for the higher grade technical education and after completion of the technical qualification, his service was categorised as Part Time Teacher. Later, he was appointed as a Full Time Craft Teacher from 06.01.1983. 3.The petitioner completed his X Standard Examination in April 1989. He was working as a Full Time Craft Teacher in the school. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1366 (Education) dated 05.09.1986 fixing the pay for the Full Time Craft Teachers on par with the Secondary Grade Teacher and as such fixed the pay as per G.O.Ms.No.1366 (Education) dated 05.09.1986. The petitioner was given the Selection Grade pay on 16.09.1993 and necessary orders were passed by the competent authority on 20.12.1993. He was allowed to retire on attaining the age of superannuation. Just one day prior to the date of his retirement, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 30.01.2004 with regard to the recovery of sum which has already been fixed and paid to him by means of Selection Grade pay on the basis of the Government Orders. On the basis of the said recovery order dated 30.01.2004, a sum of Rs.83,632/- was recovered by the first respondent. 4.The contention on the petitioner's side is that the petitioner is a qualified Full Time Craft Teacher on and from 06.01.1983 and as per the order of the Government, the pay of Full Time Craft Teacher was revised on par with the Secondary Grade Teacher and he was drawing salary of Selection Grade Teacher with effect from 06.01.1983 and later, the post of Craft Teacher became a regular one and subsequently fixed in the same category and his service as Full Time Craft Teacher and Secondary Grade Teacher was one and the same with effect from 06.01.1983 and therefore, he was given Selection Grade pay and as such the impugned order of the first respondent dated 30.01.2004 in effecting the recovery of Rs.83,632/- is an illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable one in the eye of law and in regard to a similar case, the aggrieved persons had approached the State Administrative Tribunal by means of Original Application and that the Tribunal had issued a direction that the Selection Grade ought to be awarded notionally with effect from 1.10.1984 giving the monetary benefits from 1.4.1986. As against the said order of the Administrative Tribunal, the Government filed W.P.No.12066 of 1999 before this Court and this Court on 27.07.2001 had among other things held as follows: "what was forcefully argued before us was that the respondent reacher could not have asked for counting his https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ middle school services for selection grade as that service was on the lower pay scale. It was tried to be argued that after the said teacher was granted higher pay scale. If he continued for ten yeas on that pay scale then alone, he was entitled to the selection grade. In fact, this argument was made before the Tribunal also and the Tribunal has refuted this argument and, in our opinion, correctly. What will be seen from G.O.Ms.No.1105 dated 22.8.1989 is that the Craft teachers in the middle schools were made eligible for the selection grade and special grade scales of pay on par with the craft teachers of the high school. However, in that Government Order, there was no condition imposed that this advantage was to be given only on completion of the ten years of service only as high school craft teacher. The learned counsel also relied on the Government letter dated 4.10.1990 to suggest that the services rendered in the posts carrying equal and higher scales of pay alone could be taken into account for the grant of selection grade or special grade in case of the respondent, since he was working as middle school craft teacher that service could not be taken into account for the purpose of awarding selection grade. The Tribunal has refuted this argument on the basis of the contents of paragraph 2 of G.O.Ms.No.1366 dated 5.9.1986 as also the other G.O.Ms.No.1105 dated 22.8.1989. We are in complete agreement with the Tribunal on the interpretation of the relevant Government Orders in question. The Tribunal has also taken the example of the Head Master of the primary school and has drawn parallel. In our opinion, the language of the concerned Government Orders is clear enough to suggest that the concerned respondent was undoubtedly entitled to the selection grade on account of his services right from 1970 as middle school craft teacher and thereafter, his Services as high school craft teacher for which, he had also acquired a proper qualification, i.e S.S.L.C., in the year 1986. In our opinion, there is no necessity to interfere with the order of the Tribunal in which the findings are recorded in a proper manner." and consequently, dismissed the writ petition without costs, and as such, the impugned order of recovery passed by the first respondent dated 30.01.2004 is quite contrary to the order of this Court passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the writ petition referred to supra and moreover the impugned order of the first respondent dated 30.01.2004 was issued without providing reasonable opportunity to the petitioner which was in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the petitioner is eligible not only to claim the recovered amount of Rs.83,632/- but also the interest thereto and therefore prays for allowing the writ petition in the interest of justice. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.On behalf of the first respondent, the learned Additional Government Pleader contends that the petitioner was appointed as Full Time Craft Teacher and he joined on 06.01.1983 and his qualification at the time of appointment was passed in VIII Standard and his pay was fixed in the Higher Grade after passing SSLC Examination on 26.04.1989 and his pay was revised and re-fixed which equals to the Secondary Grade Assistant Pay viz., Rs.610-20-730-25-955-30-1075 and as per the proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.1416/A1/93, dated 20.12.1993, the petitioner was awarded with Selection Grade taking into account of the services of the Higher Grade Teachers Pay Scale Services (from 6.1.1983 to 25.4.1989) and Secondary Grade Assistant Pay Scale Services (from 26.4.1989 to 5.1.1983) on 6.1.1993 and as per the direction received from the Director of Elementary Education, Chennai in proceedings Rc.No.38506/EF3/93, dated 22.11.2000 sanction of Selection Grade to the petitioner was suspended and pay was revised downwards and excess pay was recovered from his retirement benefits since he retired from service on 31.01.2004 and as a matter of fact, the proceedings of the Director of Elementary Education, Chennai dated 22.11.2000 was to the effect that only identical scale of pay services should be taken into account for awarding Selection or Special Grade but the petitioner joined in service on 06.01.1983 without SSLC qualification which was a must for Secondary Grade Assistant Pay Scale and therefore, he was allowed to continue in Higher Grade Scale of Pay and after passing SSLC on 26.04.1989 he was allowed to draw his pay in Secondary Grade Assistant Scale and as per the rules, services of identical scale of pay may be taken into account for awarding Selection or Special Grade and as such, the impugned order of recovery of the first respondent dated 30.01.2004 was proper and moreover, in G.O.Ms.No.1366/Education dated 05.09.1986, it was mentioned that only SSLC qualified Middle School Craft Teachers were allowed for Secondary Grade Scale of Pay of Rs.610-20-730-25-955-30-1075 and not otherwise and therefore prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6.At the outset, it is to be pointed out that the impugned order dated 30.01.2004 of the first respondent was issued without providing an adequate opportunity of hearing the petitioner in regard to the recovery of a sum of Rs.83,632/- and in this regard, this Court is of the considered view that there was a negation of the Principles of Natural Justice. The term of Natural Justice refers to justice according to the conscience. In modern parlance, it means fairness or reasonableness. If an adequate opportunity of putting forth a view is not provided to an aggrieved person then certainly it will be a clear case of violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India, in the considered opinion of this Court and viewed in the perspective, the impugned order of the first respondent dated 30.01.2004 is vitiated. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7.At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner brings to the notice of this Court that this Court (Division Bench) in W.P.NO.12066 of 1999 on 27.07.2001 had dismissed the writ petition filed by the District Educational Officer, Tiruvannamalai and three others wherein the Original Application filed by the respondent thereto before the Administrative Tribunal was challenged in and by which the respondents therein had sought for quashing the order passed by the Director of School Education dated 22.11.1990 and also prayed for a direction to award Selection Grade to him in the pay scale of Rs.705/- with monetary benefits and this Court also held that there was no necessity to interfere with the order of Administrative Tribunal in which the findings were recorded in just and proper manner and the said decision will apply to the facts of the present case on hand in full vigour and viewed in that perspective, the order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.71/2004/A2 dated 30.1.2004 is not valid in law and the same is set aside. The petitioner is entitled to get the refund of Rs.83,632/- being the amount recovered from him but the same shall be paid by the first respondent without interest within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9.In the result, the writ petition is allowed leaving parties to bear their own costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. cla To 1.The Additional Assistant Elementary Education Officer, Vellakoil,Erode District. 2.The Accountant General,(A&E), Teynampet,Chennai. + 1 CC TO Mr.V.Vijayshankar, CC SR 12699 + 1 cc to Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel, CC SR 12593 + 1 cc to Govt., Pleader CC Sr 12445 W.P.No.37161 of 2004 RB (CO) RH (4.3.10) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/