{"id":48205,"date":"2011-02-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-02-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-palanimani-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-8-february-2011"},"modified":"2018-09-04T06:49:16","modified_gmt":"2018-09-04T01:19:16","slug":"r-palanimani-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-8-february-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-palanimani-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-8-february-2011","title":{"rendered":"R.Palanimani vs The District Revenue Officer on 8 February, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">R.Palanimani vs The District Revenue Officer on 8 February, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 08\/02\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE  M.VENUGOPAL\n\nW.P.(MD)No.3689 of 2008\n\nR.Palanimani\t\t\t        \t \t... Petitioner\n\nVs.\n\nThe District Revenue Officer,\n(Formerly designated as Special\nDeputy Collector)\nKallar Reclamation,\nMadurai-625 020.\t\t\t\t\t... Respondent\n\t\nPrayer\n\nWrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to\nissue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to\nthe Order dated 22.04.2005 made in Na.Ka.No.H1\/36606\/2002 of the Special Deputy\nCollector, Kallar Reclamation, Madurai-20, the respondent herein, and to quash\nthe same and to direct the respondent to refix my scale of pay as per the order\nof the respondent in Na.Ka.No.H1\/119573\/2001 dated 23.03.2001 within a\nreasonable time.\n\n!For Petitioner\t... Mr.R.Inbaraj\n^For Respondent ... Mr.D.Sasikumar,\n\t\t    Govt Advocate.\n\t\t\n:ORDER\t\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the relief of a<br \/>\nWrit of Certiorarified Mandamus in calling for the records relating to the Order<br \/>\ndated 22.04.2005 in Na.Ka.No.H1\/36606\/2002 of the respondent Special Deputy<br \/>\nCollector, Kallar Reclamation, Madurai-20, and to quash the same.  Further the<br \/>\npetitioner has sought a relief of issuance of direction to the respondent to<br \/>\nrefix his scale of pay as per the order of the respondent in<br \/>\nNa.Ka.No.H1\/119573\/2001 dated 23.03.2001  within a reasonable time to be<br \/>\ndetermined by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.The petitioner was employed as the Headmistress  of Government Kallar<br \/>\nHigher Secondary School, Pappapatti, Kallar Reclamation Department, Madurai.<br \/>\nShe retired as superannuation on 30.05.2002.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.The petitioner&#8217;s first appointment was Matron in Government Girls<br \/>\nHostel, Chinnamanur, Theni District and she joined duty on 25.12.1968.  She<br \/>\nworked as Matron of this Hostel from 25.12.1968 to 26.07.1973. On the<br \/>\nadministrative ground she was transferred as Headmistress of Government Kallar<br \/>\nMiddle School Uthamapuram, Theni District and joined duty on 27.07.1973.  The<br \/>\nscale of pay of B.T.Assistant and Middle School B.T.Headmaster are one and the<br \/>\nsame and the same namely Rs.1300-300-15-420-20-500.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t 4.The petitioner worked in the Government Kallar Middle School<br \/>\nUthamapuram, Theni District, from 27.07.1973 to 20.07.1975.  Later, she was<br \/>\ntransferred to Government Hostel Chinnamanur as B.T.Matron.  The B.T.Assistant<br \/>\nand B.T.Headmaster of the Middle School and B.T. Matron post are transferable<br \/>\npost in Kallar Reclamation Department and the scale of pay for these posts are<br \/>\nidentical.  She worked in the Hostel from 24.07.1975 to 09.07.1978.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.According to the petitioner, she was transferred from Chinnamanur Girls&#8217;<br \/>\nHostel to Markayankottai, Kallar Middle School, as Headmistress and she was<br \/>\nawarded with the Selection Grade on 26.12.1978 and the time scale was fixed at<br \/>\nRs.690\/- in the time scale of Rs.600-30-750-35-890-40-1050.  She worked as an<br \/>\nHeadmistress in the Middle School, she was transferred as Headmistress of<br \/>\nGovernment Kallar Middle School Vagurani and joined duty on 17.07.1980. She was<br \/>\nrendered her duty as Headmistress of Middle School from to 17.07.1980 to<br \/>\n31.10.1981.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.The petitioner was transferred to Vellayammalpuram High School as<br \/>\nB.T.Assistant Teacher  from the post of Middle School Headmistress of Vagurani,<br \/>\non the administrative ground she obeyed the order and joined as B.T.Assistant<br \/>\npost and joined duty during June 1987.\n<\/p>\n<p>  \t7.The petitioner on the administrative ground She was transferred as<br \/>\nHeadmistress of Government Kallar Middle School\/Bommayan Goundampatti, where she<br \/>\nserved as Headmistress from September 1987 to April 1989 she was awarded with a<br \/>\nSpecial Grade on 26.12.1988 and when she was served as Headmistress of Middle<br \/>\nSchool at Bommayan Goundampatti and her pay was fixed at Rs.1600-50-2300-60-<br \/>\n2660. The petitioner was transferred from Bommayan Goundampatti Middle School<br \/>\ntransferred to Markayankottai Kallar Middle School as Headmistress and served<br \/>\nand joined duty on 05.05.1989 to till 26.01.1992.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.The petitioner during the duty of Headmistress of Government Kallar<br \/>\nMiddle School, Bommayan Goundampatti while in serving on 12.09.1987 to<br \/>\n30.04.1989 she was eligible for fixation of pay as Headmistress of Middle School<br \/>\nas per Fifth Pay Commission report.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.The petitioner when she was working as Headmistress of Middle School at<br \/>\nMarkayankottai on the administrative ground she was transferred to Government<br \/>\nHigher School at Karunakkathampatti as B.T. Assistant and joined duty on<br \/>\n06.07.1990.  She worked in the said School till 26.01.1992, she was promoted as<br \/>\nHeadmistress of Government Kallar High School, Karunakkathampatti and joined<br \/>\nduty on 27.01.1992 and served till 01.12.1998.  The petitioner was promoted  as<br \/>\nHeadmistress of Government Kallar Higher Secondary School, Pappapatti and<br \/>\nretired on 31.05.2002.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and<br \/>\nother appointees got the promotion as Headmistress of High Schools and Higher<br \/>\nSecondary Schools and Post Graduate Assistant of High Secondary Schools<br \/>\ndepending upon their educational qualifications and seniority.  Also, the time<br \/>\nscale of pay for B.T. Assistant and Middle School B.T. Headmaster like the<br \/>\npetitioner were one and the same    prior to the Fifth Pay Commission.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11.After the Fifth Pay Commission, the time scale of pay for B.T.<br \/>\nAssistant was Rs.1400-40-1600-50-2300-60-2600.  The time scale of pay for Middle<br \/>\nSchool B.T. Headmaster in the Ordinary Grade Scale of pay was fixed as Rs.1640-<br \/>\n60-2600-75-2900.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12.It is the stand of the petitioner as per Rule 4(3) of the Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nRevised Scales of Pay Rule 1989, if the pay fixed in the officiating post is<br \/>\nlower than the pay fixed in the substantive post, it shall be fixed at the stage<br \/>\nnext above the substantive pay and where the pay of a Government servant who has<br \/>\nmoved from a lower post to a higher post or from Ordinary Grade to Selection<br \/>\nGrade is fixed at a stage lower than what would have been admissible in the<br \/>\nlower post or Ordinary Grade (if he is in the Selection Grade Post)his pay shall<br \/>\nbe stepped up to the stage equal to the pay in the lower post or grade or if<br \/>\nthere is no such stage to the next higher stage.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13.The petitioner contends that as per Rule 4(3) of the Tamil Nadu Revised<br \/>\nScale of Pay Rules, 1989 her scale of pay have been revised.  The respondent now<br \/>\nissued the impugned proceedings, referring to the objections raised by the<br \/>\nAccountant General of Tamil Nadu who is issued the impugned proceedings for<br \/>\nrecovery of Rs.61,433\/- and to be recovered from the salary payable from the<br \/>\nmonth of January 2004.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14.The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that<br \/>\nno opportunity of calling for explanation from her as to why such an amount may<br \/>\nnot be recovered according to Audit Report and therefore she has filed the<br \/>\npresent writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15.In the grounds of writ petition it is averred that the impugned order<br \/>\ndated 22.04.2005, does not disclosed as to how the calculation for excess<br \/>\npayment of salary has been arrived and hence the claim is an non-speaking, as a<br \/>\ncryptic one. Also submit that the Government as per G.O.Ms.No.160, dated<br \/>\n23.08.2005 as stated that in paragraph 2(1) dated 01.06.2005, the Government has<br \/>\nissued G.O.Ms.No.160, School Education Department, dated 23.08.2005.  Whereas<br \/>\nthe Government  Ordered that there will be no recovery of salary already paid to<br \/>\nthose Headmistress for the period from 01.06.1998 to 01.08.2005 and the persons<br \/>\nserving as on 01.08.2005, the difference of salary will be added at their<br \/>\npersonal pay and recovery or re-fixation of order will not be given effect to.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent<br \/>\nfailed to provide an opportunity to her to submit her reply to Accountant<br \/>\nGeneral&#8217;s Audit Report by making her representations on her behalf before<br \/>\npassing the impugned order.  Inasmuch as no opportunity has been provided before<br \/>\npassing the impugned order is liable to be quashed.  The contents of the learned<br \/>\nCounsel for the petitioner it is represented that one A.C.Ramachandran who was<br \/>\nthe Headmaster of Government Kallar Higher Secondary School, Rajathani filed an<br \/>\nO.A.No.331 of 2004 in the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal against the<br \/>\nimpugned order passed by the respondent in his proceedings dated 28.01.2004.<br \/>\nThe petitioner as well as A.C.Ramachandran&#8217;s scale of pay was reduced but<br \/>\nwithout any notice to A.C.Ramachandran passed the recovery order by re-fixing<br \/>\nhis pay and recovery was taken effect from his pay bills.  The O.A.No.331 of<br \/>\n2004 was transferred to Madras High Court and numbers as W.P.No.32514 of 2005.<br \/>\nThe petitioner&#8217;s salary as Headmistress has been fixed as per the Fifth Pay<br \/>\nCommission Report and the same is said to have been wrongly determined by the<br \/>\nimpugned order dated 22.04.2005.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t17.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court in<br \/>\nW.P.No.32514 of 2005 has refixed the pay scale of A.C.Ramachandran, Headmistress<br \/>\nas on 01.06.1998, cancelling the recovery order passed by him.  The said<br \/>\nA.C.Ramachandran and the petitioner worked as Headmasters of Higher Secondary<br \/>\nSchools in Kallar Reclamation Department and the recovery order  has been passed<br \/>\nagainst only the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t18.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the<br \/>\nRespondent submits that the order passed by the Madurai Bench of this Court in<br \/>\nW.P.(MD)No.8930 of 2007 was challenged by the Respondent in W.A.(MD)No.392 of<br \/>\n2010 and the same was dismissed by this Court on 16.07.2010.  In a similar<br \/>\ncases, the Honourable High Court&#8217;s order were implemented by the Respondent and<br \/>\nthe individuals  namely A.C.Ramanchandran, Periakaruppanan and M.Sannasi who<br \/>\nenjoyed the benefits of the High Court order. It is the contention of the<br \/>\nRespondent that the Accountant General, Chennai, in his inspection report dated<br \/>\n20.12.2001 has observed that the petitioner appointed as Middle School Teacher<br \/>\nand her pay was refixed from 01.06.1988 onwards.  With reference to the pay she<br \/>\nwould have drawn in the post of Middle School Headmaster as per Rule 4(3) though<br \/>\nshe was not actually worked as Middle School Headmaster on 01.06.1988.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t19.The Accountant General also pointed out that as per the clarification<br \/>\nissued in Government letter No.197\/CMPC\/93-1 dated 08-11-1993 the B.T.Assistants<br \/>\nand Tamil Pandits appointed for the post of Middle School Headmasters prior to<br \/>\n01.06.1988 cannot claim the pay of the Middle School Headmasters.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t20.The Accountant General has requested to recover the excess payment on<br \/>\naccount of re-fixation under Rule 4(3).  As such the pay of the petitioner was<br \/>\nrefixed in this office proceedings Roc.No.H1\/36606\/02 dated 10.02.2003 and<br \/>\n22.04.2005 which works out Rs.61,433\/-.  This sum has been ordered to be<br \/>\nrecovered from Death-cum-Gratuity(DCRG) benefits.  The learned Government<br \/>\nAdvocate puts forward a plea that as per G.O.Ms.No.57 Finance(Pay Cell-II)<br \/>\nDepartment dated 28.01.1991, the Government has clarified the re-fixation under<br \/>\nRule 4(3) can be applied for re-fixation of pay at any point of time on or after<br \/>\n01.06.1988.  Moreover, in Government letter No.85197\/CMPC\/93-1  dated 08.11.1993<br \/>\nthe Government has clarified that the post of primary School Headmaster is on<br \/>\nRs.1400-2600 and the post of B.T.Assistant\/Tamil Pandits is on Rs.1,400-2,600\/-.<br \/>\nHowever, the post of Middle School Headmaster is on Rs.1,640-2900.  Hence, the<br \/>\nB.T. Assistant\/ Tamil Pandits appointed for the post of Middle School Headmaster<br \/>\nprior to 01.06.1988 cannot claim the pay of the Middle School Headmaster.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t21.The learned Government Advocate contends that the petitioner was<br \/>\nselected as B.T. Assistant and she was drawing the pay in the time scale of pay<br \/>\nadmissible to the post of B.T. Assistant till 31.05.1988. The Government has<br \/>\nissued a letter of clarification in Ref.No.85197\/CMPC\/93-1 dated 08.11.1993, in<br \/>\nand by which the Middle School Headmasters (Secondary Grade)who were promoted<br \/>\nand appointed to the post of B.T. Assistant\/Tamil Pandits prior to 01.06.1988<br \/>\nfrom the post of Secondary Grade Teachers, cannot claim the pay of the Middle<br \/>\nSchool Headmasters. Hence, directly appointed B.T. Assistants and who continued<br \/>\nas B.T. Assistants till 31.05.1988 or till the promotion of next cadre also<br \/>\ncannot claim the pay of the Middle School Headmaster as per Rule 4(3)of the<br \/>\nTamil Nadu Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 1989, since the substantive post is B.T.<br \/>\nAssistant admissible to the post of till 31.05.1988 or till their promotion to<br \/>\nthe next cadre.  The clarification issued in Government Lr.No.85197\/CMPC\/93-1<br \/>\ndated 08.11.1993 is quiet applicable to the facts of the present case to the<br \/>\npetitioner and even as per Rule 4(3)of Tamil Nadu Revised Scale of Pay Rules,<br \/>\n1989, the petitioner is not eligible to claim the pay of Middle School<br \/>\nHeadmaster since the substantive post is only to B.T. Assistant.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t22. Apart from the above, the learned Government Advocate appearing for<br \/>\nthe Respondent contents that only on 01.06.1988 higher scale of pay was awarded<br \/>\nto the post of Middle School Headmaster and it become promotive post as B.T.<br \/>\nAssistant.  Therefore, the Government have clarified generally that B.T.<br \/>\nAssistant\/Tamil Pandits appointed from post of Middle School Headmaster prior to<br \/>\n01.06.1988 cannot claim the pay of Middle School Headmaster under Rule 4(3).<br \/>\nThis includes the Secondary Grade Middle School Headmaster to B.T. Assistants<br \/>\ndirectly appointed prior to 01.06.1988.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t23.In the counter filed by the Respondent it is lastly mentioned that the<br \/>\nexcess payment of salary  due to wrong fixation was only due to the<br \/>\nmisrepresentation of the petitioner letter dated 12.12.2000 and the petitioner<br \/>\nbeing ahe Higher Secondary School Headmaster of correctly inform in the Special<br \/>\nDeputy Collector (K.R.)Madurai in regard to fixation of pay has misguided in<br \/>\nresultantly the petitioner has received as excess payment to which she is not<br \/>\neligible at all and therefore the excess amount received by the petitioner is<br \/>\nliable to be recovered from her.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t24.A perusal of the letter of the petitioner dated 12.12.2000, addressed<br \/>\nto the respondent shows that the petitioner as among other things requested for<br \/>\nsetting aside the pay fixation order and to fix the Middle School Headmaster<br \/>\nsalary as per Rule 4(3) of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 1989.  As<br \/>\nfar as the present case is concerned the petitioner has addressed a letter dated<br \/>\n12.12.2000, to the respondent requesting for fixation of Middle School<br \/>\nHeadmaster salary it is the duty of the respondent to act on the said<br \/>\nrepresentation in a dispassionate manner and to fix the proper salary of the<br \/>\npetitioner in the considered opinion of this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t25.The learned Counsel for the petitioner cites the order passed by this<br \/>\nCourt in W.P.No.32814 of 2005 dated 22.02.2006 between the A.C.Ramachandran -vs-<br \/>\nState of Tamil Nadu rep.by the Secretary to the Government Finance (CMPC)<br \/>\nDepartment Fort.St.George, Chennai and three others, wherein, in paragraphs 3<br \/>\nand 4 it is observed and held as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;3.Learned Counsel for the petitioner also cited a judgment of the<br \/>\nHonourable Supreme Court reported in (1995) 1 SCC 18 (Sahib Ram -Vs- State of<br \/>\nHaryana) wherein, it is categorically held that the benefit of revision of pay<br \/>\nscale having been granted by wrong construction made by the Department and not<br \/>\non any misrepresentation of the Government servant, he cannot be found fault<br \/>\nwith and the excess amount paid, shall not be recovered from him.  The learned<br \/>\ncounsel also argued that before passing the Impugned Order, no notice was issued<br \/>\nto the petitioner and that action of the respondent is against the principles of<br \/>\nnatural justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.In view of the above said Government Order as well as the above cited<br \/>\njudgment and having regard to the non observance of the principles of natural<br \/>\njustice, the impugned order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed.  No<br \/>\ncosts.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t26.Pursuant to the order passed by this Court,  by order dated 02.06.2007<br \/>\nthe Respondent has implemented the order of this Court  in W.P.No.32814 of 2005<br \/>\ndated 22.02.2006 and the petitioner&#8217;s pay has been re-fixed and the amount<br \/>\nrecovered was repaid to him.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t27.Likewise, G.Sannachi has filed the writ petition in W.P.No.28617<br \/>\nof 2005 before this court against the State of Tamil Nadu rep.by the Secretary<br \/>\nto the Government Finance (CMPC) Department Fort.St.George, Chennai and three<br \/>\nothers, wherein, in paragraphs 3 and 4 laid down as follows:<br \/>\n\t&#8220;3.Learned Counsel for the petitioner also cited a judgment of the<br \/>\nHonourable Supreme Court reported in (1995) 1 SCC 18 (Sahib Ram -Vs- State of<br \/>\nHaryana) wherein, it is categorically held that the benefit of revision of pay<br \/>\nscale having been granted by wrong construction made by the Department and not<br \/>\non any misrepresentation of the Government servant, he cannot be found fault<br \/>\nwith and the excess amount paid, shall not be recovered from him.  The learned<br \/>\ncounsel also argued that before passing the Impugned Order, no notice was issued<br \/>\nto the petitioner and that action of the respondent is against the principles of<br \/>\nnatural justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.In view of the above said Government Order as well as the above cited<br \/>\njudgment and having regard to the non observance of the principles of natural<br \/>\njustice, the impugned order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed.  No<br \/>\ncosts.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The said order passed by this Court in W.P.No.32816 of 2005 dated 22.02.2006 has<br \/>\nbeen complied with by the Respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t28.Also, in W.P.No.8930 of 2007 between K.Karmegam -vs- The District<br \/>\nRevenue Officer(Formerly designated as Special Deputy Collector), Kallar<br \/>\nReclamation, Madurai-20, on 13.11.2007 in paragraph &#8216;3&#8217; observed as follows:<br \/>\n\t&#8220;3.In view of the said undisputed facts and having regard to the fact that<br \/>\nthe recovery order is passed without any notice and the salary having been fixed<br \/>\nwithout any suppression of the fact on the part of the petitioner, the impugned<br \/>\norder of recovery cannot be sustained and consequently the impugned order is set<br \/>\naside and the writ petition is allowed in terms of order passed in W.P.No.32814<br \/>\nof 2005 dated 22.02.2006.  No costs.  Consequently, the connected miscellaneous<br \/>\npetition is closed.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t29.As against the order dated 13.11.2007 in W.P.No.8930 of 2007, a Writ<br \/>\nAppeal in W.A.No.392 of 2010 has been filed by the respondent.  The said writ<br \/>\nappeal has been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 16.07.2010.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t30.The learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks in aid of the aforesaid<br \/>\nwrit petition order and an order of W.A.No.392 of 2010, to the effect that in<br \/>\nsimilar cases where the petitioner is placed this Court has set aside the<br \/>\nimpugned order of recovery and hence applying the said principles the present<br \/>\nwrit petition is also to be allowed by this Court in the interest of justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t31.As far as the present case is concerned although the petitioner has<br \/>\nreportedly  addressed to the communication to the respondent dated 12.12.2000 in<br \/>\nregard to the fixation of her salary it cannot be said by any stretch of<br \/>\nimagination that the petitioner has himself represented to the respondent as<br \/>\nregards to the fixation of salary for the reason that it is for the appointing<br \/>\nAuthority\/Employer to fix the proper pay scale of the petitioner in a particular<br \/>\npost after looking into the relevant rules, Government Orders.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t32.The original fixation of the petitioner salary is as per the<br \/>\nproceedings of the respondent dated 23.03.2001. The impugned order dated<br \/>\n22.04.2005, passed by the respondent in and by which a sum of Rs.67,578\/- has<br \/>\nbeen said to be an excess payment made to the petitioner which has been deducted<br \/>\nfrom its gratuity amount payable to her.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t33.In view of the fact that the petitioner has been given the benefit by<br \/>\nmeans of wrong fixation and since no notice has been issued to the petitioner in<br \/>\nregard to the recovery of a sum of Rs.67,578\/- this Court is of the considered<br \/>\nview that an excess amount paid to the petitioner shall not be recovered from<br \/>\nher by the respondent inasmuch as it is the duty of the<br \/>\nrespondent\/employer\/appointing authority to fix the correct salary of the<br \/>\npetitioner in proper scale.  Further the impugned order of recovery is in<br \/>\nviolation of principles of natural justice, in that, no notice has been issued<br \/>\nprior to the issuance of recovery order, this Court come to an inevitable<br \/>\nconclusion that an excess amount of Rs.67,578\/ recovered from the petitioner<br \/>\nfrom gratuity is to be repaid to the petitioner by the respondent within a<br \/>\nperiod of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.  Further,<br \/>\nthe respondent is directed to fix the petitioner&#8217;s salary in a proper scale of<br \/>\npayafter providing necessary opportunity to the petitioner to make her<br \/>\nrepresentation if any in the manner known to law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t34.With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed, leaving the<br \/>\nparties to bear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>gsr<\/p>\n<p>TO<br \/>\nThe District Revenue Officer,<br \/>\n(Formerly designated as Special<br \/>\nDeputy Collector)<br \/>\nKallar Reclamation,<br \/>\nMadurai-625 020.\t<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court R.Palanimani vs The District Revenue Officer on 8 February, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08\/02\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL W.P.(MD)No.3689 of 2008 R.Palanimani &#8230; Petitioner Vs. The District Revenue Officer, (Formerly designated as Special Deputy Collector) Kallar Reclamation, Madurai-625 020. &#8230; Respondent Prayer Writ Petition is [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-48205","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>R.Palanimani vs The District Revenue Officer on 8 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-palanimani-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-8-february-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R.Palanimani vs The District Revenue Officer on 8 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-palanimani-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-8-february-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-04T01:19:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-palanimani-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-8-february-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-palanimani-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-8-february-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R.Palanimani vs The District Revenue Officer on 8 February, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-04T01:19:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-palanimani-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-8-february-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3247,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-palanimani-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-8-february-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-palanimani-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-8-february-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-palanimani-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-8-february-2011\",\"name\":\"R.Palanimani vs The District Revenue Officer on 8 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-04T01:19:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-palanimani-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-8-february-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-palanimani-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-8-february-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-palanimani-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-8-february-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R.Palanimani vs The District Revenue Officer on 8 February, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"R.Palanimani vs The District Revenue Officer on 8 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-palanimani-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-8-february-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R.Palanimani vs The District Revenue Officer on 8 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-palanimani-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-8-february-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-04T01:19:16+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-palanimani-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-8-february-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-palanimani-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-8-february-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R.Palanimani vs The District Revenue Officer on 8 February, 2011","datePublished":"2011-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-04T01:19:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-palanimani-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-8-february-2011"},"wordCount":3247,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-palanimani-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-8-february-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-palanimani-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-8-february-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-palanimani-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-8-february-2011","name":"R.Palanimani vs The District Revenue Officer on 8 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-04T01:19:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-palanimani-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-8-february-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-palanimani-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-8-february-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-palanimani-vs-the-district-revenue-officer-on-8-february-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R.Palanimani vs The District Revenue Officer on 8 February, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48205","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=48205"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48205\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=48205"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=48205"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=48205"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}