- (1.) W.P.No,46094 of 2006: Original Application No,6699 of 2000 filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, on abolition, transferred to the file of this Court and renumbered as Writ Petition No,46094 of 2006, seeking for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the respondent is Ref.No,34598/2000/J4, dated 30.6.2000, and quash the same. Prayer in W.P.No,49380 of 2006: Original Application No,4920 of 2001 filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, on abolition, transferred to the file of this Court and renumbered as Writ Petition No,49380 of 2006, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to sanction pension and pensionary benefits to the applicant with effect from 30.6.2000, onwards with interest as he was allowed to retire from service, on 30.6.2000. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
(2.) THE brief facts of the cases are as follows: THE petitioner had entered into service, as a Higher Grade Teacher, in the respondent Department. Later, he had been promoted as a Secondary Grade Teacher. THEreafter, he was promoted as a Headmaster of the Primary School. As such, he had been serving at various places. His services were regularised after he had completed the period of probation. THE petitioner had attained Selection Grade, as well as Special Grade. He had retired from service, on 30.6.2000, on attaining the age of superannuation. Later, he was re-appointed, as a Secondary Grade Teacher, in Adi Dravidar Welfare High School, Asoor, till the end of the academic year. The petitioner has stated that his salary, in the cadre of selection and Special Grade Headmaster, had not been properly fixed. Therefore, he had made a request to re-fix the salary, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.1381, Education, dated 5.10.1996. Following the representation, made by the petitioner, his salary had been re-fixed, by an order of the respondent, in Na.Ka.No.12381/97/J4, dated 13.3.1997, and he was paid the arrears of salary. While so, an internal audit had been conducted and it was alleged that an excess amount of Rs.1,72,815/- had been paid to the petitioner. Based on the audit report, a show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner. After a lapse of four years, the respondent had issued the impugned order of recovery, in Pro.Na.Ka.No,34598/2000/J4, dated 30.6.2000. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the original application, in O.A.No,6699 of 2000, before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. The Tribunal, by its order, dated 14.9.2000, had granted an order of interim stay of the recovery. However, after the petitioner had retired from service, on his attaining the age of superannuation, the pensionary benefits have not been given to the petitioner, even though he had been allowed to retire from service, on 30.6.2000.
(3.) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a copy of the audit report had not been given to the petitioner. Further, no show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner before the impugned order of recovery, dated 30.6.2000, had been issued by the first respondent. THE impugned order, dated 30.6.2000, had been issued by the first respondent, after a lapse of four years. Since there was no misrepresentation by the petitioner and the payment of the alleged excess amount was not due to any fraud committed by the petitioner, the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 30.6.2000, is arbitrary, illegal and void. No reply or counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents.;