Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2574 (MAD)

Joint Commissioner (ST) v. M. Anthoniammal

2024-11-11

A.D.MARIA CLETE, M.S.RAMESH

body2024
JUDGMENT : M.S.RAMESH, J. PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order dated 19.09.2023 passed in W.P.(MD).No.6880 of 2023 on the file of this Court and allow this Writ Appeal. Challenging the common order dated 19.09.2023 in W.P.(MD).Nos.6880 to 6896 of 2023, the appellant is before this Court with these appeals. 2. When the Tamil Nadu Kadhi Board was declared to be financially in-viable to run the unit, employees of the board were absorbed to other Government departments through G.O(Ms)No.154 Handloom, Handicraft, Textiles and Kadhi Department dated 21.11.2009. As per the said G.O., the employees, who have been absorbed to other departments, will be treated as new appointees with pay protection. However, the service protection was not extended to them. 3. The aforesaid G.O(Ms)No.154 came to be subsequently amended through G.O(Ms)No.152 Handloom, Handicraft, Textiles and Kadhi Department dated 12.07.2012, wherein, the service protection was also extended to these employees who were transferred from the Board apart from their pay protection. In addition, G.O(Ms)No.152 also gave credit to the service rendered by them in the Board, for the purpose of calculating the pensionary service period. 4. Thereafter, all the erstwhile employees of the Board were extended with selection grade of pay on completion of 10 years and special grade of pay on completion of 20 years of service, which service period included their earlier service rendered in the Board. 5. Through a letter dated 19.12.2017, the Secretary to Government, Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and Kadhi Department, had permitted all the Heads of the Departments to treat the selection grade/special grade of pay granted to these employees as illegal and ordered for recovery of the excess payment made to them. The letter of the Secretary dated 19.12.2017 was assailed before the learned Single Judge The letter of the Secretary dated 19.12.2017 was assailed before this Court in W.P.(MD).No.2560 of 2018 and the same was allowed and the authorities were directed to pass orders afresh after hearing the writ petitioners. Pursuant to the same, the appellant herein passed orders dated 29.11.2022, cancelling the special grade of pay granted to the respondents and ordered for recovery of payment, which orders were put to challenge before the learned Single Judge. 6. Pursuant to the same, the appellant herein passed orders dated 29.11.2022, cancelling the special grade of pay granted to the respondents and ordered for recovery of payment, which orders were put to challenge before the learned Single Judge. 6. The learned Single Judge placed reliance on an earlier decision of the writ Court in W.P(MD).No.4976 of 2020 relating to similar excessive staff of the Board, who were absorbed in the other Government Departments and whose award of selection grade/special grade of pay was cancelled and held that the cancellation of selection grade/special grade is illegal. The orders passed in those writ petitions are assailed in these intra-Court appeals. 7. The only ground raised by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellant is that G.O(Ms)No.152 enables for inclusion of the service period of those employees with Kadhi Board, only for the limited purpose of calculating the pensionary services and not otherwise and therefore, the award of selection/special grade of pay was rightly declared to be illegal and the consequential recovery was ordered by the appellant and thereby sought for setting aside the orders of the writ Court. 8. We do not agree with such a submission, since G.O(Ms)No.152, which is an amendment to the earlier G.O(Ms)No.154, extends service protection simpliciter, as well as for inclusion of service period of any employee, G.O(Ms)No.152 in this regard is self explanatory, which reads as follows: 9. When the employees of Kadhi Board were ordered to be absorbed in other Government departments, G.O(Ms)No.154 came to be passed with a specific clause that these employees will have the benefit of pay protection, but cannot be extended with service protection. However, G.O(Ms)No.152 brought forth an amendment to G.O(Ms)No.154, by incorporating service protection also, as evident in the aforesaid extract. The second portion of the Government order clarifies that the service rendered by these employees in the Kadhi Board should also be included for calculating the pensionary services. Thus, all the erstwhile employees of Kadhi Board were ultimately extended with pay protection, service protection and pensionary benefits by calculating their service period rendered at Kadhi Board. We are not in a position to give any other meaning to G.O(Ms)No.152, apart from what has been categorically stated therein. It is for this reason that we have held that we do not agree with the ground raised by the learned Additional Government Pleader. 10. We are not in a position to give any other meaning to G.O(Ms)No.152, apart from what has been categorically stated therein. It is for this reason that we have held that we do not agree with the ground raised by the learned Additional Government Pleader. 10. The learned Single Judge had also rightly considered the intention of the Government in G.O(Ms)No.152 and had allowed the writ petitions. This apart, the learned Single Judge had also placed reliance on the decision in a similar writ petition, in which, a reference has also been made to the case of State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer's case) [2015 (4) SCC 324] and held that recovery from Group C and Group D employees is impermissible in law. It would be pertinent to point out here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in White washer's case has held that recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period of excess of five years before the order of recovery is issued, is also impermissible in law, which proposition would also apply to the facts in the present cases. 11. In the light of these findings and observations, we do not find any merit in these Writ Appeals. Accordingly, all the Writ Appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.