logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide

24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 5844 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : W.P. No. 3335, 3336 3337, 3338 3339, 3340, 3341, 3342, & 18659 of 2017 & W.M.P. nos. 3309, 3311, 3313, 3315, 3317, 3319, 3321, 3323 & 20119 of 2017
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
Parties : E.S. Thirunavukkarasu & Others Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Chennai & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: P. Sundararajan, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, Y. Kavitha, Additional Government Pleader, R2, S. Venkatesh for Ajmal, Advocates.
Date of Judgment : 30-07-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -

Case Refered:
High Court of Punjab & Haryana Vs Jagdev Singh - 2016 (14) SCC 267
Judgment :-

(Prayer in W.P.No.3335 of 2017: This Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records in G.O. (Ms) No.452 dated 20.10.2015 issued by respondent No.1 and quashing the Paragraph 11(ii) and (vii) thereof so far as the same provides for recovery of the so-called excess payment made to the non-teaching staff of the erstwhile Anna University of Technology, Coimbatore, and forbearing respondents 1 and 2 from recovering any amount from the salary of the petitioner pursuant to the said G.O.,)

Common Order:

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate for the second respondent and perused the records.

2. Since the lis involved in all the above writ petitions are one and the same, all the writ petitions are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

3. The petitioners in all the writ petitions assail the correctness of the paragraph No.11(ii) and (vii) of the G.O. (Ms) No.452, Higher Education (I1) Department dated 20.10.2015, whereby the first respondent issued proceedings absorbing the teaching and non teaching staff in the University Departments/ Constituent Engineering Colleges of erstwhile Anna Universities of Technology and directed the second respondent to rectify and re-fix the pay of 120 teaching staffs and 18 non-teaching staffs on account of pay anomalies and to recover excess pay from concerned teaching/non-teaching staff and after getting approval from the Finance Committee/Syndicate of Anna University.

4. The case of the petitioner is that they are all non teaching staff working with the erstwhile Anna Universities of Technology; that their pay was fixed while in services by the said university; that the first respondent while issuing the impugned G.O cannot allege that there is a pay anomaly between the non teaching staffs of colleges of Anna University of Technologies and Anna University, Chennai and to initiate action by the second respondent to recover the excess payment made to the petitioners while they were serving in the erstwhile Anna University of Technologies. It is the further case of the petitioner that since the pay was fixed by the Anna University of Technologies, and having paid the said pay, the respondent could not have issued a direction to recover the same, particularly considering the fact that the petitioners are all category -C employees of the erstwhile Anna University of Technology. In support of the aforesaid contention reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of [State of Punjab and others V. Rafiq Masih(White Washers) and others reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334]. reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of High Court of Punjab & Haryana Vs. Jagdev Singh, reported in 2016 (14) SCC 267.

5. On behalf of the Respondent-University it is contended that since the aforesaid direction is a part of the Government Order issued, while absorbing the employees of the erst while Anna University of Technology, the second respondent is required to take action thereon. The learned counsel on behalf of the respondent however contended that since, the aforesaid Government Order required to undertake the said recovery from Teaching and Non Teaching staff after getting approval from the Finance Committee/ syndicate of Anna University and as of now no such approval having been granted by the Finance Committee/Syndicate of the Anna University no action has been initiated or taken to recover the excess pay from the petitioners and that the petitioners have approached this Court only on apprehension, that the excess amount will be recovered from them.

6. I have taken note of the respective contentious urged.

7. The first Respondent by issuing the G.O.M.S.No.452, Higher Education (I1) Department dated 20.10.2015 permitted the Anna University of Technologies and its constituent colleges to merge with the Anna University of Chennai provided for absorption of the teaching and non teaching staff of the University Departments and Constituent colleges of erstwhile Anna University of Technology, in Anna University, Chennai. As a result of the issuance of the above mentioned G.O., the teaching and Non teaching staff of Anna University of Technologies were absorbed as staff of Anna University, Chennai. The Government while issuing the aforesaid Government order permitting merger, taking note of the existence of pay anomalies permitted the Anna University to correct the pay scale of the staff of the erstwhile Anna University of Technology, to the line with the pay scale of the staff of the Anna University and permitted the Anna University, the second respondent herein to recover the excess pay.

8. However, the said permission granted by the first respondent herein under the basis of the aforesaid G.O was subject to getting approval from the Finance Committee/syndicate of the Anna University.

9. Since it is now informed to this Court that as of today no such approval having been granted by the Finance Committee/Syndicate of Anna University and taking note of the fact more than 11 years had been passed by, since, the issuance of the G.O, this Court is of the view that the respondent are to be restrained from initiating any action thereon, now.

10. Further since it is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners herein are all Group-C category employees applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in [State of Punjab and others V. Rafiq Masih(White Washers) and others reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334 the respondent cannot take any action to recover excess if any paid to them while they were working as non teaching staff with Anna University of Technologies, on being absorbed with the Anna University,Chennai under G.O.M.S.No.452, Higher Education (I1) Department dated 20.10.2015.

11. With the above observations and directions all the above writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. Consequently the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

 
  CDJLawJournal