K. Raman and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary, Animal Husbandary and Fisheries Department, - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- .....that even during the previous month, the respondents attempted to deduct the amount, but it was postponed, now, they are taking steps to recover the same without giving opportunity to the petitioners. it is to be remembered that as on date, there is no cause of action arisen warranting the petitioners to file the writ petition, however, any attempt on the part of the respondents to recover the amount without any notice to the petitioners is untenable.5. considering the above said fact, i am of the view that the respondents may be directed not to deduct any amount from the petitioners without affording opportunity to them. accordingly, i direct the respondents not to deduct any amount until opportunity is granted to the petitioners.6. this writ petition is disposed of accordingly. no costs. consequently, w.p.m.p. nos. 45055 & 45056 of 2004 are closed.

Judgment:

ORDER

A. Kulasekaran , J.

1. The petitioners have filed the above writ petition for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the second respondent in proceedings Na.Ka. No. 23307/RR2/2004-2, dated 21.10.2004 and the consequential order passed by the 3rd respondent in MK. Na.Ka. No. 20636/B3/2002, dated 3.11.2004 and quash the same.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

3. The petitioners were appointed as N.M.R between 1973 and 1977 in Animal Husbandry Department. Later under G.O. Ms. No. 116, dated 7.5.1997, the service of the petitioners and other casual labourers were regularised on temporary basis. Pursuant to the said Government Order, the petitioners were appointed as Animal Husbandary Assistants on temporary basis in and by the order dated 10-07-1977 passed by the third respondent. Thereafter, G.O.Ms. No. 17 dated 03-02-2004 was issued regularising the service of the petitioners from the date of appointment and the petitioners were entitled to receive all benefits from 10-07-1997. While things are such, the second respondent issued the impugned proceedings dated 21-10-2004 stating that regularisation has been made wrongly from 10-07-1997 instead of 03-02-2004 and monetary benefits paid to the petitioners and others has to be recovered. It is stated that based on the said proceedings, the third respondent is attempting to recover the monetary benefits said to have been granted erroneously, without affording any opportunity to the petitioners.

4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that even during the previous month, the respondents attempted to deduct the amount, but it was postponed, now, they are taking steps to recover the same without giving opportunity to the petitioners. It is to be remembered that as on date, there is no cause of action arisen warranting the petitioners to file the writ petition, however, any attempt on the part of the respondents to recover the amount without any notice to the petitioners is untenable.

5. Considering the above said fact, I am of the view that the respondents may be directed not to deduct any amount from the petitioners without affording opportunity to them. Accordingly, I direct the respondents not to deduct any amount until opportunity is granted to the petitioners.

6. This writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P. Nos. 45055 & 45056 of 2004 are closed.