IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.01.2010
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL
W.P.Nos.6918,6925,6931 and 9012 of 2003
K.Jagannathan .... Petitioner in
W.P.No.6918 of 2003
P.Gopalakrishnan .... Petitioner in
W.P.No.6925 of 2003
V.Ganesan .... Petitioner in
W.P.No.6931 of 2003
S.Pitchumani ... Petitioner in
W.P.No.9012 of 2003
Vs.
1. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
rep by its Secretary
800, Anna Salai,
Chennai-2
2. The Chief Internal Audit Officer
Board Office,Audit Branch
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
First Floor
800, Anna Salai,
Chennai-2 ... respondents in
all writ petitions.
These Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of the writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.
For Petitioners : Mr. R.Parthiban For Respondents : Mr.M.Vaidyanathan(TNEB) C O M M O N O R D E R
The petitioners have filed the writ petitions praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent in letter No. 26157/ F.4/F.42/BOAB/2002-1 dated 1.7.2002, Letter No.26157/F.4/F.42/ BOAB/2002-3 dated 1.7.2002,Letter No.26157/F.4/F.42/BOAB/2002-4 dated 1.7.2002, and letter No.26157/F.4/F.42/BOAB/2002-2 dated 1.7.2002 respectively and letterNO.26157/F4/F42/2002-7 dated 9.1.2003,letter No.26157/F4/F42/2002-8 dated 9.1.2003, letter No.26157/F4/F42 /2002-6 dated 9.1.2003 and letter No.26157/F4/ F42/ 2002-5 dated 9.1.2003 respectively of the second respondent, to quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to revise the pension of the petitioner to Rs.4050/- per month,Rs.4050/- per month,Rs.3621/- per month and Rs.4050/- per month respectively.
2. The petitioners have retired as a Special Grade Accountant on 31.3.1983,31.7.1984,31.12.181 and 31.7.1976 respectively on superannuation from the service of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and they have receiving pension from the date of retirement. It is the case of the petitioners that as per G.O.Ms.No.200 Finance Department dated 18.5.1999, the Government of Tamil Nadu revised the pension in respect of pre-1996 pensioners and the same has been adopted by the first respondent/Board in respect of individuals receiving pension from the Electricity Board. While adopting the orders of the Government, the Electricity Board also by means of proceedings in BP(CH) NO.250 dated 5.10.1999 has decided that in the case of employees who have retired from service prior to 1.12.1996,the revised pension shall be calculated at 50% of the minimum of the revised time scale of pay introduced with effect from 1.12.1996 applicable to the post last held by the employee at the time of retirement. Also the said order mentioned that the Chief Internal Audit Officer, viz., the second respondent would be responsible for the revision of pension based on the application submitted by the petitioner and in respect of employees whose posts were abolished and not in existence on the date of issue of the both the proceedings, the second respondent would identify the appropriate revised scale admissible to those posts with effect from 1.12.1996 and in case of difficulty, the matter would be referred to the first respondent.
3. By identifying the post of Assistant Accounts Officer as the post equivalent to the Special Grade Accountant, since the post of Special Grade Accountant was not in existence on 5.10.1999 , the pension was revised to Rs.4050/- Rs.4050/- Rs.3621 and Rs.4050/- per month. The petitioner started drawing the revised pension from 1.4.1999 onwards and arrears of Rs.10,296/-,Rs.6279/-,Rs.9958/- and Rs.6624/- respectively have also been credited to their account along with the monthly pension for February 2000,February 2000,December 1999 and December 1999 respectively.
4. Subsequently, it appears that without further notice, the second respondent issued an order dated 31.5.2000,7.6.2000, 1.6.2000 and 31.5.2000 respectively by stating that it had identified that the time scale of pay applicable to the post of Special Grade Accountant would be Rs.5850-9850 and the basic pension would be revised to Rs.3290/-,Rs.3532/-Rs.2700/- and Rs.2925/- respectively. Accordingly, the earlier revision of pension was cancelled and it was also decided that an excess amount of Rs.14,460/-,Rs.9859/-,Rs.15812/- and Rs.21406/- respectively would be recovered in instalments from the pension of the petitioner.
5. The petitioners have made a representation dated 17.6.2000,24.7.2000,15.6.2000 and 3.10.2000 respectively but the respondents have not sent a reply. Hence the petitioner has filed W.P.No.17545 of 2000,W.P.No.755 of 2001, W.P.No.20658 of 2000 and W.P.No.771 of 2001 respectively and by order dated 13.2.2002, the order was set aside on the ground that it was in violation of principles of natural justice and again the petitioners gave representations on various dates and the representation of the Union was also rejected on 3.2.2003 by the first respondent. In view of the rejections, the second respondent in his letter dated 9.1.2003 has resumed the recovery of pension already paid in excess. Hence the above writ petitions filed by the petitioners for the aforesaid prayers.
6. On behalf of the respondents, a counter has been filed inter alia mentioning that the petitioners while drawing a basic pension of Rs.3290/-,Rs.3532/-Rs.3621/- and Rs.2499/- respectively had applied for pension revision in terms of orders issued in (per).B.P.(Ch) NO.250(SB) dated 5.10.1999 and as a matter of fact the petitioners had held a post of Special Grade Accountant at the time of their retirement on 31.3.1983,31.7.1984,31.12.1981 and 31.7.1976 respectively and since the said post had been abolished during the year 1984 itself and that post was not in existence with effect from 1.12.1984 and in the said basic pay, the identification scale of pay for such revision is entrusted with the second respondent and initially, the pension in respect of the above case was wrongly revised taken into account the revised scale of pay of Rs.8100-275-13875 applicable to the post of Assistant Audit Officer instead of revised scale of pay Rs.5850-200-9850 applicable to be post of Special Grade Revenue Supervisor and equal categories and later the first respondent in his letter dated 8.9.2000 had issued clarificatory orders that the posts of Senior Superintendent , Special Grade Accountant and Special Grade Deputy Stores Officer/Stock verifier were abolished with effect from 1.12.1984 and at the time of abolition, the above posts were grouped with the following posts for the purpose of identification of scale of pay (i) Special Grade Revenue Supervisor,(ii) Draughtsman Grade I(Now Head Draughts Man),(iii) Junior Chemist and (iv) Chargeman. Even after the abolition of the post held by the petitioner, the scale of pay of Rs.5850-200-9850 applicable to the equivalent posts were being continued and hence the scale of pay of Rs.5850-200-9850 should be taken as the appropriate revised scale for revision of pension in respect of the post held by the petitioner and placing reliance on the clarificatory orders, the pension in respect of the petitioner was again revised but not less than that of pension which was already drawn by the petitioner with effect from1.1.1996 and the amount paid in excess was arranged to be recovered from the Dearness Allowance portion of his monthly pension based on a declaration furnished by the petitioners etc and the second respondent passed an order on 31.5.2000 to cancel the earlier revision of pension which was wrongly made and ordered recovery for the excess amount in instalments from the pension of the petitioners. Challenging the above order,the petitioners have filed writ petitions before this Court and the petitioners have got interim stay in the miscellaneous petitions and in the final order dated 13.2.2002 this Court set aside the impugned order dated 31.5.2000 with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the said petitioners’ representation and to pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from that date.
7. It is now brought to notice of this Court on behalf of the counsel for the petitioners that the representation dated 30.11.2008 has been made by the writ petitioner in W.P.No.6918 of 2003 to the Secretary of the Union and like wise, the petitioners have also made similar representations and till date, no such order has been issued by the respondents and the pendency of the matter with the respondents, has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents.
8. In view of the fact that the representations dated 30.11.2008 and other representations made by the petitioners in different dates are pending consideration before the Secretary of the first respondent ,this Court on the basis of Equity, Fair Play and good M.VENUGOPAL,J
sg
Conscience, deems it fit and proper in directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 30.11.2008 given by the writ petitioner in W.P.No.6918 of 2003 and the representations given by the other writ petitioners in the year 2008 on different dates,and to pass necessary orders,within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till such time, it is made clear that the respondents shall not make any recovery of the excess amount purported to have been received by the petitioners.
9.With the above observations, these writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.
12.01.2010
Index:Yes
Internet:Yes
sg
To
1. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, rep by its Secretary
800, Anna Salai,
Chennai-2
2. The Chief Internal Audit Officer,Board Office,Audit Branch
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, First Floor
800, Anna Salai, Chennai-2
W.P.Nos.6918/2003 etc.,