Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1210 (MAD)

P. Kalaimani v. Registrar-General

2024-06-10

C.KUMARAPPAN, S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

body2024
ORDER : S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J. The writ petitioner was working as Masalchi and subsequently she was transferred to the post of Office Assistant in the pay band of Rs.4,800/- - Rs.10,000/- + Rs.1,300/- Grade Pay. 2. The pay was revised by the first respondent in proceedings dated 23.08.2012. Promotional increment was also sanctioned on transfer from the post of Masalchi to the post of Office Assistant on 03.09.2012. 3. However, based on the Audit Report of Internal Audit Wing of the Madras High Court, the Special Sub Judge, Cuddalore issued order re-fixing the scale of pay of the writ petitioner and consequentially ordered for recovery of excess pay and allowance paid to the writ petitioner to the tune of Rs.91,988/-. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not made any misrepresentation nor responsible for erroneous fixation of pay. In the event of recovery at this length of time, the same would result in hardship. Thus the recovery is to be set aside. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents would oppose by stating that the Authorities Competent are empowered to correct the mistakes in the fixation of pay. 6. In the present case, the Internal Audit Wing raised an objection regarding wrong fixation of pay of the writ petitioner and the consequential re-fixation and recovery order was issued. The petitioner is not entitled for the fixation originally made, which is over and above the scale of pay prescribed for the post in which she was working. Thus there is no infirmity in the order impugned and the present writ petition is to be rejected. 7. Considering the pleadings, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was originally worked as Sanitary Worker and subsequently, she was transferred to the post of Office Assistant. The Internal Audit Wing identified an error in the re-fixation and consequently ordered for recovery of excess pay and allowance already paid to the writ petitioner. 8. In view of the fact that the respondents could not establish any misrepresentation or otherwise on the part of the writ petitioner, the recovery of excess pay and allowance from the petitioner, who is working as Class IV employee, would result in great hardship. However, the respondents are empowered to correct the mistakes occurred in the fixation. 9. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the recovery of excess pay and allowance alone. However, the respondents are empowered to correct the mistakes occurred in the fixation. 9. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the recovery of excess pay and allowance alone. However corrected revision of pay stands confirmed. The petitioner is entitled to receive revised pay as per the Pay Rules and the Government Orders in force. 10. With the above observations, the present writ petition stands allowed in part. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.