T. Raja, J.@mdashThe Petitioners herein seek for issuance of writs of certiorarified mandamus to call for therecords pertaining to the order passed by the 1st Respondent in his proceedings videNa.Ka.127801/2008/VeUooVa.4, dated 16.12.2008,confirming the order passed by the 2nd Respondent in hisproceedings No. Estt//Accts//Grats/1001/ADO -(201)/2002 & (205) /2004, dated 12.07.2002 and 01.07.2004 asagainst the respective Petitioners, and direct theRespondents to pay the reserved amount of Rs. 92,275.51to the Petitioner in WP No. 8135 of 2009 andRs. 1,00,751.91 to the Petitioner in WP No. 8136 of 2009with interest @ 9% p.a.
2. Since in both the writ petitions, challengeis made to the impugned orders passed by the very sameauthority and the issue being the same, they aredisposed of by this common order.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitionerpoints out that in the year 1968, the Petitionersherein joined the services of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative State Agricultural and Rural Development BankLimited/R2 as Clerk and Supervisor respectively and,after being promoted as Grade I Supervisor andSelection Grade Supervisor, subsequent to a decisiontaken by the Bank in the year 1984 to appoint LandValuation Officer from amongst the Senior Supervisorsof the Primary Agricultural and Rural Development Banksthroughout the State, they came to be appointed as LandValuation Officer (in short ''LVO'') with effect from27.12.1984 in the scale of pay of Rs. 525/-.Consequently, the Petitioners along with 34 othersimilarly promoted employees of the III Batch joinedduty in the promoted post at Vellore & CoimbatoreRegional Offices respectively. Though the Petitionerswere drawing Rs. 675/-as basic pay even in the previousposts held by them, the basic pay in the promoted postwas fixed only as Rs. 525/-. Therefore, all the 36persons/LVOs of the III Batch including the Petitionersherein made a representation to the 2nd Respondent-Bankon 20.01.1986 and requested to revise the pay byspecifically pointing out that the LVOs appointed in 1978 and 1980 were already getting a higher pay ofRs. 865/-and Rs. 835/-respectively while Rs. 525/-hasbeen fixed as basic pay for the LVOs of the III Batch.Consequently, the 2nd Respondent Bank issued ordersdated 04.04.1986 fixing the pay of LVOs who wererecruited on 09.01.1985 or later at Rs. 625/-givingfour increments in the scale of pay of Rs. 525/-. Eventhough the anomaly has been set right by the aforesaidorders dated 04.04.1986, after a period of 12 years,the 2nd Respondent issued a show cause notice to thePetitioners on 17.03.1997 for recovery, that too basedon the objections raised by the Audit Department, andultimately passed the impugned orders.
So pointing out the factual aspects, learnedcounsel for the Petitioners would submit that the showcause notice issued in the background of auditobjections stating that the Petitioners resigned thepost of Supervisor in the Branch of the Primary Bankand thereafter, joined the post of LVOs as freshemployees and therefore, their services rendered in thePrimary Cooperative Land Development Bank cannot be combined with the services of 2nd Respondent Bank, ishighly discriminatory. According to him, it is not eventhe case of the Respondents that the Petitioners hadever at any point of time misrepresented before theDepartment for enhancement of salary. The 2nd Respondenthaving considered the representation submitted by theLVOs of the III Batch for a fair fixation of salarycompared to I and II Batch of LVOs, by orders dated04.04.1986, fixed the scale of pay at Rs. 625 for theIII Batch contrasting their case with that of the I andII Batch and that being so, it is not open for the 2nd Respondent to issue a show cause notice followed by theimpugned orders, adversely affecting the terminalbenefits accrued to the Petitioners.
In support of his submission, learned Counselfor the Petitioners relied upon a decision of the ApexCourt reported in
Ultimately, by producing a copy of theproceedings in R.C. No. 107410/2009 ARDB.4, CooperativeDepartment, dated 09.12.2010, issued by the firstRespondent, learned Counsel for the Petitionerssubmitted that, by virtue of the said communication,the Respondents have once again revised the scale ofpay of employees working in the Respondents-Bank,therefore, the impugned orders seeking retention of theaforesaid amounts under the head ''reserved amount'' areliable to be set aside with a direction to refund theamounts to the Petitioners respectively, as noprejudice would be caused to the Respondents if theimpugned orders are set aside on the basis of the abovementioned proposition laid down by the Hon''ble ApexCourt.
4. Heard the learned Counsels appearing for the Respondents.
5. Though a detailed counter affidavit has beenfiled by the 2nd Respondent-Bank by stating that thepresent financial status of the Bank is rather fragile,nowhere therein, it is whispered or mentioned as to whythe Respondents have passed the impugned proceedingswhen they had already fixed and paid the scale of paynot only to the III Batch consisting of the Petitionersbut also to I and II Batch. Further, the proceedingsof the Co-operative Department, vide R.C. No. 107410/2009 ARDB-4, dated 03.12.2010, would staremuch at the case of the Respondents. While the counteraffidavit proceeds as if the Bank has No. other sourceof income and has to survive only on the interestmargin on the jewel loan which is being disburse; theaforesaid proceedings indicate that the Respondent/Bankhad submitted a proposal for revision of pay includingDearness Allowance, Stagnation Increment, House Rent Allowance, City Compensatory Allowance, MedicalAllowance, Special Allowance etc., and that suchproposal had been examined and the Bank was permittedto implement the revision of wages as detailed therein.Therefore, the present stand taken by the Bank citingfragile source of income does not weigh much beforethis Court to tilt the scales in its favour. In suchcircumstances, after contrasting the case on hand withthe one decided by the Apex Court in Sahib Ram''s casefollowed by Syed Abdul Qadir''s Case (both cited supra),it must be held that, when No. misrepresentation orfraud has been made or played by the employees of theGovernment or its Agencies or Institutions like theRespondent Bank while making requests for enhancementof monetary benefits, after considering the grievanceregarding parity in pay with other equally placedpersons, if the Bank finds justification in the claimand fixes the pay scale to remove the parity, thePetitioners/beneficiaries cannot and should not beconfronted with the impugned order for recovery basedon audit objections particularly after lapse of a decade and at a crucial time when the employeesconcerned attained the age of superannuation.Therefore, in the light of the decisions of the ApexCourt as cited above, this Court does not feel anyrestraint to interfere with the impugned orders byholding the same legally untenable while making itclear that the present order passed, in the peculiarfacts, is applicable only to the Petitioners and not toother persons. The Respondent-Bank is directed torefund the amount recovered from the Petitioners withina period of six weeks from the date of receipt of acopy of this Order.
Writ Petitions are allowed with the aforesaid observation and direction. No. costs.
