Madras High Court
B.Shanmukham vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 February, 2021
W.A.No.1158 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.02.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.A.No.1158 of 2020
B.Shanmukham ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Secretary,
Home (Police 18 Department)
Fort St.George, Chennai 9
2.The Director,
Forensic Sciences Department,
Mylapore, Chennai 4
3.The Accountant General,
(Accountant and Entitlement)
No.361, Anna Salai,
Chennai 18 ... Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 11.11.2020 passed in W.P.No.18910 of 2010.
For Appellant :: Ms.N.R.Jasmine Padma
For Respondents :: Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan,
State Government Pleader
__________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1158 of 2020
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The appellant was engaged in the Forensic Sciences Department
and was inducted into service in 1974. He applied for alteration of his
date of birth from July 1, 1949 to March 23, 1951. Such application
was allowed without apparently following the procedure laid down in
rule 49 of the General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate
Services, 1955.
2. By an order of March 31, 2009 the mistake committed by the
department was sought to be corrected. However, by such time, the
appellant had already rendered service beyond his age of
superannuation. Accordingly, the period from July 1, 2007 to March
31, 2009 was directed to be treated as re-employment.
3. The grievance of the appellant is that despite only providing
for the period as re-employment after the age of superannuation
reckoned on the basis of the original date of birth, by subsequent
proceedings, some deductions from the payments already paid to the
appellant were sought to be made. It is evident that by an order dated
August 7, 2009 a princely sum of Rs.27,836/- was required to be
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1158 of 2020
deducted out of the gratuity due to the appellant.
4. By the judgment and order impugned dated November 11,
2020, the writ petition has been dismissed. But the amount has been
directed to be recovered from the petitioner in 12 installments
commencing January, 2021. The appellant is aggrieved by the order
and says that the part of the action on the part of the employer to
recover the perceived excess payment of Rs.27,836/- should have
been set aside.
5. There is no basis to the appellant's claim. Notwithstanding the
appellant's assertion that the appellant had applied for alteration of the
date of birth in the year 1977, the application on record appears to
have been filed on December 18, 1993. Since it was such application
which was on record and the date of the application was nearly 19
years after he was inducted into service, such application could not
have been countenanced. The principal order assailed in the writ
petition, the one dated March 31, 2009 is unexceptionable and calls
for no interference. By the subsequent order of August 7, 2009 only
the additional payments made by way of increments at the time of the
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1158 of 2020
"re-employment of the petitioner" after he attained the age of
superannuation were attempted to be recovered. It will be evident that
the increments granted were of value of Rs.325/- against the
appellant's monthly salary which was in excess of Rs.12,000/-.
Considering the paltry amount that was directed to be recovered from
the appellant against the virtually unquestionable position that the
appellant worked for nearly two years in excess of the appellant's
entitlement and drew substantial salary therefor, the judgment and
order impugned cannot be faulted. At any rate, the pill was made
easier to swallow, so to say, by permitting the deduction to be made
in installments.
6. There is no merit in the appeal and the judgment and order
dated November 11, 2020 do not warrant any interference.
W.A.No.1158 of 2020 is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
Consequently, C.M.P.No.14273 of 2020 is closed.
(S.B., CJ.) (S.K.R., J.)
19.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
tar
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1158 of 2020
To:
1.The Secretary,
Home (Police 18 Department)
Fort St.George, Chennai 9
2.The Director,
Forensic Sciences Department,
Mylapore, Chennai 4
3.The Accountant General,
(Accountant and Entitlement)
No.361, Anna Salai,
Chennai 18
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1158 of 2020
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
tar
W.A.No.1158 of 2020
19.02.2021
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
