A. Bhoopalan vs The State of Tamil Nadu

D. Hariparanthaman, J.—Heard Mr. S. Srinivasan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. C. Ravi, learned Counsel for the respondents

1 to 3 and Mr. Vijayshankar, learned Counsel for the fourth respondent.

The petitioner was promoted as Headmaster of Primary School with effect from 07.04.1989. He was fixed in the scale of Rs. 2000-60-2300-

75-3200 based on G.O. Ms. No. 1381, Education Department, dated 05.10.1990. After 12 years, on the eve of his retirement, the impugned

order dated 23.06.2000 was passed by the fourth respondent stating that the pay was erroneously fixed as if he was promoted as Headmaster on

01.06.1988. The fixation of pay on 07.04.1989 was not due to any misrepresentation made by the petitioner. In these circumstances, the

petitioner could not be blamed. There is no reason adduced for seeking to revise the pay and to reduce the same after 12 years.

The impugned order was passed on 23.06.2000, while the petitioner was to retire on 30.06.2000. He was paid pension based on his fixation

made on 07.04.1989, that is, sought to be reduced and re-fixed and also recovery is sought to be made.

The impugned order was passed without any notice. As stated above, the alleged erroneous fixation in the year 1989 was not due to any

misrepresentation from petitioner. The petitioner retired from service 10 years back.

Taking in to account, the said circumstances of the case, I am of the view, a decision of this Court in D. Palavesamuthu Vs. The Tamil Nadu

Administrative Tribunal, directly applies to the facts of the case. Para 5 of the said judgment is extracted here-under:

As rightly pointed out, the very same Tribunal has not accepted the claim of the applicant/petitioner herein. We are of the view that the course and

method adopted by the Tribunal cannot be appreciated in the case of the petitioner. Even if it is accepted for the argument sake that salary of the

petitioner is fixed in a wrong scale of pay, it is the fault committed by the Department and their Officers, for which the petitioner should not be

penalised after a lapse of number of years that too after retirement of the petitioner.

Further, the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.

Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No costs.