Skip to content


P. Chandra Vs. The Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Madras and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberW.P(MD)No. 1605 of 2012 & M.P(MD)No. 1 of 2012
Judge
AppellantP. Chandra
RespondentThe Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Madras and Others
Excerpt:
.....of 5% of personal pay for the period from 09.09.2007 to 01.09.2008 as well as re-fixation of the revised selection grade pay is in order. he further contended that in the light of g.o.ms.no.1193 home (courts) department dated 07.08.1995, as well as orders passed by this court, status quo prevailed prior to passing of impugned order has to be restored and prays for appropriate orders. 4. this court heard the the learned counsel for the respondent as to whether any opportunity of hearing has been afforded before passing the impugned order and he is unabel to give explanation. 5. this court heard the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents placed before the court. 6. a perusal of typed set of papers would indicate that 5% of personal pay granted to.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records connected with the impugned order passed by the second respondent in D.No.171 dated 04.02.2012 and quash the same.)

M. Sathyanarayanan, J.

1. The petitioner would state that she was originally working as Reader with effect from 08.09.1997 and she was given Selection Grade on 09.09.2007 and she got her promotion as Junior Assistant on 02.01.2008. It is further stated by the petitioner that on account of want of vacancy and that the candidates selected by Tamilnadu Public Service Commission to be accommodated, she was reverted and posted as Examiner from the afternoon of 13.07.2009 and transferred to the District Court, Sivagangai. The petitioner got her promotion as Junior Assistant on 01.12.2010 and at present, she is working as Junior Assistant in Subordinate Court, Devakottai.

2. It is also stated by the petitioner that recommendation of 5th Pay Commission was given effect to and scale of pay has been revised accordingly. she got Selection Grade after promoted as Junior Assistant. The grievance expressed by the petitioner is that without putting her on any notice or providing any opportunity, 5% of personal pay from 09.09.1997 to 01.09.1998 sought to be recovered and so also, pay fixation of her with effect from 09.09.2007 in the revised pay band of Rs.9300 + 34800 + G.P. Rs.4200/- and accordingly, her pay has been re-fixed with effect from 09.09.2007 in the revised scale of pay of Rs.5200 20200 + 2400.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the typed set of papers and would contend that admittedly the recovery of 5% of personal pay for the period from 09.09.2007 to 01.09.2008 as well as re-fixation of the revised Selection Grade pay is in order. He further contended that in the light of G.O.Ms.No.1193 Home (Courts) Department dated 07.08.1995, as well as orders passed by this Court, Status quo prevailed prior to passing of impugned order has to be restored and prays for appropriate orders.

4. This Court heard the the learned counsel for the respondent as to whether any opportunity of hearing has been afforded before passing the impugned order and he is unabel to give explanation.

5. This Court heard the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents placed before the Court.

6. A perusal of typed set of papers would indicate that 5% of personal pay granted to the petitioner for the period from 09.09.2007 to 01.09.2008 is ordered to be recovered and her scale of pay in the course of Selection Grade pay also been revised and the said order visits the petitioner with grave civil consequences. She should have been put on notice and admittedly, it has not been done. Hence, on the sold ground the impugned order warrant interference.

7. In the result, the Writ Petition is partly allowed and the impugned order dated is set aside and the second respondent is directed to issue Show Cause Notice to the petitoner as to the reasons for recovery of personal pay and also for the revised scale of Selection Grade pay within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and upon receipt of the said notice, the petitioner is directed to submit her explanation within a period of four weeks thereafter and the second respondent on receipt of the same is directed to consider his representation and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six weeks thereafter and communicate the decision taken to the petitioner and till such time, the respondent shall not effect recovery. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) NO.1 of 2012 is closed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //