JUDGMENT : (Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to refund the deducted amount of Rs.2,25,636/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty Six only) deducted in the petitioner's retirement benefits and also to pay compensation for having caused pecuniary loss and mental agony to a retired employee and a senior citizen.) 1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order of refixation of Selection Grade and consequence order of recovery. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Fitter Helper in the office of the third respondent herein viz., Assistant Executive Engineer (A.E.,), Government Tractor Workshop, Madurai on 13.08.1975 F.N. Then, his designation was changed as Fitter on 05.02.1977 under emergency provision and again he was appointed as Machinist on 17.01.1985 under the same provision. At that time, the scale of pay to both the posts of Fitter and Machinist were one and the same. He was not promoted to Grade-I post on any occasion. If he was promoted, his pay would have been fixed by applying F.R.22B fixation. Due to wrong interpretation of rules over awarding Grade-I which is person oriented in lieu of awarding of Selection Grade Scale by virtue of Special Temporary Post in G.O.Ms.No.1050 Finance (Pay Commission) Department, dated 05.10.1978, he was awarded Grade-I post vide Proc.No.A/683/1987, dated 22.05.1987 of third respondent. Subsequently, the scheme of up-gradation was abolished and Selection Grade/Special Grade were introduced in G.O.Ms.No.304 Finance (Pay Commission) Department, dated 28.03.1990 and the same was pointed out in the Special Audit Report during the year 1991 and the Grade-I Machinist was cancelled as per the proceeding of the third respondent dated 19.09.1992 made in Proc.No.A/4351/1992. 3. The petitioner challenged the proceeding of the first respondent dated 20.09.2010 alleging that his salary was gradually reduced from 01.04.1988 till the date of retirement under the pretext that he was wrongly promoted as Grade-II Selection Grade Machinist from 01.04.1988 instead of 17.01.1995. Consequently, his salary was gradually reduced and finally declared that he was overpaid to the tune of Rs.2,25,636/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty Six only) and the alleged excess payment of Rs.2,25,636/- was ordered to be deducted from his retirement benefits. 4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents filed counter on behalf of the respondents. 4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents filed counter on behalf of the respondents. 5. The sum and substance of the counter as follows: The Machinist Grade-I post is a promotional post, not a Selection Grade post. There is no sanctioned post in Grade-I in the office of the third respondent herein and hence, there is no way to promote the petitioner from Machinist Grade-II post to Machinist Grade-I post at the third respondent office without Government sanction. Further, he was not promoted as Grade-I Machinist in any occasion. Due to wrong interpretation of rules, over awarding Grade-I which is person oriented in lieu of awarding of Selection Grade was pointed out by the departmental Audit in the year 1991 to the office of the third respondent herein. Further, it was also pointed out in the Special Audit report during the year 1991 and hence, the Grade -I post of Machinist was cancelled to the petitioner. The letter No.ED4/46902/90, dated 25.10.1990 has clearly mentioned that the ordinary grade of Grade – II Machinist after completion of 10 years service becomes Selection Grade in Grade-II post and not to fit in Grade-I post. Further, it was instructed to implement the G.O.Ms.No. 304 Finance (Pay Commission) Department, dated 28.03.1990 for workshop artisans of the Agricultural Engineering Department. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that if any proceeding is issued by the departmental head it must be based on any G.O., issued by the Government. But the proceeding in respect of the impugned order is not based on any Government Order of the State Government. He further submitted that if the petitioner was given Selection Grade in the year 1988 by taking into account of his service as Fitter for seven years and as Machinist for three years as both the Fitter and Machinist posts are in the same category and interchangeable as per the Government Order. 7. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was not promoted to Grade-I on any occasion. Due to wrong interpretation of rules, over awarding Grade-I, which is person oriented, in lieu of awarding of Selection Grade scale by virtue of special temporary post in G.O.Ms.No. 1050 Finance (Pay Commission) Department, dated 05.10.1978, he was awarded Grade-I post vide proceeding No.A/683/87, dated 22.05.1987 of the second respondent. Due to wrong interpretation of rules, over awarding Grade-I, which is person oriented, in lieu of awarding of Selection Grade scale by virtue of special temporary post in G.O.Ms.No. 1050 Finance (Pay Commission) Department, dated 05.10.1978, he was awarded Grade-I post vide proceeding No.A/683/87, dated 22.05.1987 of the second respondent. Subsequently, the scheme of upgradation was abolished and Selection Grade/Special Grade were introduced in G.O.Ms.No.304 Finance (Pay Commission) Department, dated 28.03.1990. Hence, the petitioner is not at all promoted to Grade-I and eligible to draw pay and allowances on par to Grade-I, the request of the petitioner by way filing W.P.No.3705 of 2010 to promote him as Grade-I, Selection Grade on 05.02.1997 and Grade -I, Special Grade – I on 05.02.2007. 8. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 9. After going through the service particulars of the petitioner, this Court finds that the petitioner joined in the post of Fitter Helper on 13.08.1975 on emergency provision, but, he was appointed as Fitter on 05.02.1977. Subsequently, he was appointed as Machinist temporarily on 17.01.1985 A.N., under emergency provision. In the revised pay fixation, he was awarded Selection Grade in the post of Machinist Grade-II on 17.01.1995 on completion of 10 years of service as per G.O.Ms.No.162, Finance (Pay Commission), dated 13.04.1998 and his pay has been refixed upto date. Hence, there is no violation in the recovery procedure. Further, the recovery proceedings have been prepared only based on the revised Government Order passed in G.O.Ms.No.304 Finance (Pay Commission), dated 28.03.1990. The Recovery has been made based on the refixation of pay communicated dated 03.09.2010 of the first respondent. In that order, the individual pay fixation statement has been mentioned year wise clearly quoting the relevant Government Order. Hence, the recovery is in order. 10. Furthermore, the service particulars of the petitioner are as below: The pay fixation has been done to the petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.324 Financee (Pay Commission) Department, dated 01.06.2009 only in Machinist Grade -II Post. He has been appointed as Fitter Helper on : 13.08.1975 His designation has been changed as Fitter on : 05.02.1977 He has been appointed as Machinist on : 17.01.1985 He has got Selection Grade in the post of Machinist Grade – II on : 05.02.1987 11. He has been appointed as Fitter Helper on : 13.08.1975 His designation has been changed as Fitter on : 05.02.1977 He has been appointed as Machinist on : 17.01.1985 He has got Selection Grade in the post of Machinist Grade – II on : 05.02.1987 11. For the above factual background it is to be stated that G.OMs.No.375, Personal and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 22.10.1993 has clearly mentioned in last three lines of Paragraph No.2 as follows:- “In the Government letter read above, further Government do not accept the suggestion to count the service in the Special Temporary posts for the purpose of advancement to Selection Grade of the higher posts.” 12. Further, the above said G.O has clearly revealed that the Government do not accept the suggestion to count the service in the Special Temporary posts for the purpose of advancement to selection grade of the higher post. Hence, the petitioner was not eligible to advancement to selection grade of the higher post. 13. Thus, this Court finds that on a combined reading of the service matrix of the petitioner along with G.O.Ms.No.375, Personal and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 22.10.1993 as stated supra, the Fitter, Turner and Machinist may belong to same category as per G.O's. But, Selection Grade in the Machinist post may be accorded only after completion of 10 years of service in the Machinist post. However, the individual has joined as Machinist on 17.01.1985 A.N and was accorded Selection Grade at the post on 17.01.1995 on completion of 10 years of service at that post. 14. Thus, I find that the service matrix of the petitioner all may falls under the G.O.Ms.No.304 Finance (Pay Commission) Department, dated 28.03.1990 read with the Government communication referred above and consequently, I find that the Machinist Grade – I post is a promotional post with Selection Grade Post and there is no sanctioned post of Grade-I in the office of the third respondent herein. Hence, the petitioner could not be promoted as Grade-I Machinist on any occasion. It is only due to non interpretation of Rules as pointed out by the Special Audit Report and as such, after following the procedure recovery has been ordered. Hence, the petitioner could not be promoted as Grade-I Machinist on any occasion. It is only due to non interpretation of Rules as pointed out by the Special Audit Report and as such, after following the procedure recovery has been ordered. In view of the specific provision of G.O.Ms.No.375, Personal and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 22.10.1993, which is applicable to the service matrix of the petitioner, the order of recovery is found to be correct and hence, there is no merits in this Writ Petition. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.