High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 11 MAD CK 0336

K. Masi Retired Assistant Project Officer (DWCRA) No. 3/220 Mela Street(Near Water Tank)Thuvakudi, Trichy-15 vs The District Collector Collectorate Trichirapalli, The Director of Rural Development Chennai, The Principal Accountant General (Accounts and Entitlements) Tamil Nadu, Chennai-18 and The Accountant General(Audit) Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry Chennai-35

Madras High Court · Decided on 2 November 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
D. Hariparanthaman, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 8404 of 2007 (O.A. No. 5116 of 2002)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 211 words
1.

The petitioner was appointed as Typist in the year 1964. He was posted as Junior Assistant on 01.09.1972 on transfer of service. He was promoted as Assistant on 12.05.1977 and on 18.01.1988 he was further promoted as Extension Officer. On 22.11.1995, he was promoted as Deputy Block Development Officer. Ultimately, on 11.06.1997, he was promoted as Block Development Officer. He also got further promotion as Assistant Project Officer. He retired from service on 31.05.2001 as Assistant project Officer on reaching the age of superannuation.

2.

While so, the impugned order dated 10.06.2002 was passed by the first respondent stating that there was wrong fixation of pay, while he was worked as Extension Officer in the year 1988. The impugned order was passed after 14 years of the alleged wrong fixation. It has been well settled by various decisions that if the wrong fixation was not made due to any misrepresentation by the petitioner, the respondent could not recover the alleged excess payment. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana and others (1955 Supp (1) SCC 18 ) squarely applies to the facts of this case. Hence, the impugned order is quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.