Facts
The State and its officials appealed against the order dated 13 September 2022 in W.P. No. 30695 of 2008.
Source reference: p. 1–3, 6The appeal concerned the respondent’s regularisation of service and recovery of amounts paid by way of increments.
Source reference: p. 1–3, 6The Court noted that a Division Bench had already considered the same issues in relation to G.O. (Ms.) No. 117 dated 28 August 2008 and relied on its decision in W.A. No. 847 of 2018.
Source reference: p. 1–3, 6Issues
Whether the respondent’s service was to be regularised from the date of initial appointment or from the date of the Government Order bringing her into the time scale of pay.
Source reference: p. 3–4Whether the appellants could recover amounts paid to the respondent by way of increments.
Source reference: p. 4–6Law Applied
Relying on State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Singamuthu, which referred to School Education Department, State of Tamil Nadu v. R. Govindaswamy and State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal, the Court applied the principle that regularisation and consequential monetary benefits are not ordinarily to be backdated to initial appointment where the governing Government Order provides otherwise; in this case, regularisation was to take effect from the Government Order bringing the employee into the time scale of pay.
Source reference: p. 3–4Under State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, recovery of mistaken excess payments is impermissible in specified circumstances, including recovery from Class III/IV or Group C/D employees.
Source reference: p. 4–5Reasoning
The Court treated the issues as governed by the Division Bench decision in W.A. No. 847 of 2018 and adopted its reasoning.
Source reference: p. 3–4, 6Applying A. Singamuthu, it held that regularisation was effective from the date of the Government Order bringing the respondent into the time scale, not from her initial appointment.
Source reference: p. 3–4, 6Applying Rafiq Masih, it held that the excess increment payments could not be recovered from the respondent, who fell within the protected employee category addressed by that precedent.
Source reference: p. 4–6Holding
The respondent’s service was to be regularised from the date of the relevant Government Order, rather than from the date of initial appointment, but the appellants were not permitted to recover the amounts paid by way of increments.
The Court partly allowed the writ appeal. No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Source reference: p. 6Original Court PDF
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADUvsK. CHANDRA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
