Madras High Court
The Principal Secretary To ... vs M.Karikalan on 27 January, 2021
W.A.No.1149 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.01.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.A.No.1149 of 2020
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Public Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Secretary to Government,
Personnel and Administrative Reforms
(U.Special) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
3.The Pay and Accounts Officer,
O/o Pay and Accounts Office,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. ... Appellants
Vs.
M.Karikalan ... Respondent
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 08.01.2021 passed in W.P.No.25302 of 2017.
__________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1149 of 2020
For Appellants : Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandian
Addl. Advocate General
assisted by
Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan
State Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.G.Justin
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)
There is no merit in the appeal and it ought to be appreciated
that not much has been made of it on behalf of the appellants.
2. The writ petitioner, a Government employee who retired as
Joint Secretary to the State Government, complains of the withdrawal
of certain benefits conferred to the writ petitioner in terms of a
Government Order of May 29, 1998 pertaining to rectification of
anomalies.
3. According to the appellants, in terms of Clause 12(6) of the
relevant Government Order of May 29, 1998, an employee against
whom a charge-sheet has been filed before any Criminal Court will not
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1149 of 2020
be entitled to the usual consideration but the matter of anomaly would
be dealt with on a case to case basis and, depending on the subjective
satisfaction of the State, the concerned employee will be entitled to
the benefits as conferred.
4. There is substantial anomaly in the relevant Government
Order seeking to redress the issue of anomalies. The relevant Clause
12(6) of the Government Order makes an exception, inter alia, for
employees who have suffered punishment at any stage, employees
who have been overlooked for promotion at any stage and employees
against whom an inquiry is pending in departmental proceedings or a
charge-sheet has been filed pursuant to a criminal complaint. Though
it is not relevant in the present context, prima facie, it appears that to
deny a person the opportunity for the anomalies pertaining to his pay
to be rectified because he had suffered any punishment would amount
to double jeopardy and a further punishment in addition to the
punishment already meted out. It would be similar in the case of
promotion; the employee would have been denied promotion and,
subsequently, denied the benefit of rectification of the anomaly
pertaining to his pay. Most importantly, an employee may lose the
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1149 of 2020
benefit of the rectification if a false criminal charge is levelled against
him by the investigating officer notwithstanding a subsequent
acquittal. It may do well for the State to re-consider the particular
clause and the prejudice that is likely to be suffered by an innocent but
diligent employee based on the private criminal complaint of a rank
outsider in a matter not pertaining to the employee's line of duty.
5. In the present case, it appears that following the consideration
of the petitioner's case and to rectify the anomaly pertaining to his
pay, certain benefits were conferred to the petitioner with
retrospective effect, notwithstanding the later date of the petitioner
being given the seniority. Subsequently, however, such retrospective
effect was attempted to be undone by providing only for the notional
promotion of the petitioner without offering him the benefit of the
actual pay that was initially perceived to have been wrongfully denied
to the petitioner.
6. In the normal course, if there was an anomaly in pay that was
noticed in respect of the petitioner, the employer ought to have dealt
with the same as in every other case, particularly since the criminal
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1149 of 2020
charge against the writ petitioner in the present case did not pertain to
any official activity. Merely because there is an enabling provision
does not give the employer the authority to punish the employee or
deny the employee the dues that he may otherwise command. The
State has to be a model employer and when a criminal charge brought
against the petitioner ultimately resulted in his acquittal and the
charge did not pertain to the line of duty of the petitioner, the
employer should not have used the same as an excuse to deny the
rightful dues of the petitioner. In the present case, the employer did
worse. Quite appropriately, the employer granted the rightful dues of
the petitioner and only subsequently purported to withdraw the same
by citing the highly suspicious provision pertaining to the filing of a
charge-sheet as included in Clause 12(6) of the Government Order of
1998.
7. By the judgment and order impugned dated January 8, 2020
the Court of first instance has referred to all aspects, including the fact
that the criminal case was brought against the petitioner in a matter
not concerning the petitioner's official duties. Upon a threadbare
analysis of the facts, the Court concluded that the withdrawal of the
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1149 of 2020
benefit once conferred was arbitrary and without basis. In a sense,
the State may have been excused if the State had not conferred the
benefits on the ground that the writ petitioner's conduct, in the context
of the relevant Government Order, was unworthy of any monetary
grant. However, once the benefit had been conferred upon perceiving
the petitioner to be worthy thereof, the excuses included in Clause
12(6) of the relevant Government Order could not have been resorted
to, to snatch away the pay revision extended to the petitioner.
8. For the reasons aforesaid and since the judgment has taken
all relevant considerations into account, the same and the consequent
order do not call for any interference.
9. W.A.No.1149 of 2020 is dismissed. The State is spared the
costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.14179 of 2020 is closed.
(S.B., CJ.) (S.K.R., J.)
27.01.2021
Index : Yes/No
bbr
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1149 of 2020
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Public Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Secretary to Government,
Personnel and Administrative Reforms
(U.Special) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
3.The Pay and Accounts Officer,
O/o Pay and Accounts Office,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1149 of 2020
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
bbr
W.A.No.1149 of 2020
27.01.2021
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
