IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated 08.02.2010
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR
Writ Petition No.33639 of 2006
N.Natarajan ... Applicant
-Vs.-
1.The Superintending Engineer,
(Construction),
Industries and Commerce Department,
Guindy,
Chennai 600 032.
2.The Executive Engineer, (Construction),
Industries and Commerce department,
Salem Division,
Salem 4. ... Respondents
Prayer: Original Application No.10297 of 1998 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying to call for the records on the file of the 1st respondent herein in connection with the order passed by him in Rc.1005/E1/97 dated 14.7.98 and quash the same. Since the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal was abolished, the O.A. was received by transfer and numbered as Writ Petition.
For petitioner : Mr.K.Venkatramani
Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Muthappan
For respondents : Mr.B.Vijay
Government Advocate
O R D E R
Original Application No.10297 of 1998 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying to call for the records on the file of the 1st respondent herein in connection with the order passed by him in Rc.1005/E1/97 dated 14.7.98 and quash the same. Since the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal was abolished, the O.A. was received by transfer and numbered as Writ Petition.
2.The petitioner was appointed as Work Inspector Grade II in the respondent office and he was reclassified as Work Inspector Grade I with effect from 1.1.1986, by the first respondent in his proceeding Rc.No.2128/E3/89 dated 25.3.1989. Thereafter, he was granted certain monetary benefits by the first respondent in his proceeding Rc.No.2214/E3/92 dated 29.5.1992. Consequently, he was getting higher pay and emolument. By the impugned proceeding dated 29.4.1998, recovery was ordered and such order was passed without any reason. In the order there is no reason shown as to why the recovery is made. The petitioner had the benefit of the higher pay and emoluments based on the proceeding of the competent authority and that has not been set aside. In any event, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sahibram Vs. State of Haryana and others reported in 1995 Supple. (I) SSC 18 the recovery cannot be ordered as there was no fraud or misrepresentation by the petitioner. The impugned order is a non speaking order without any reasons and therefore deserves to be set aside. The writ petition is allowed. No costs.
8.2.2010
Index: Yes/No.
Internet:Yes/No
vsm
To
1.The Superintending Engineer
(Construction),
Industries and Commerce Department,
Guindy,
Chennai 600 032.
2.The Executive Engineer, (Construction),
Industries and Commerce department,
Salem Division,
Salem 4.
R.SUDHAKAR,J.
vsm
W.P.No.33639 of 2006
8.2.2010