Madras High Court
The Superintendent Of Police vs N.Padmanabhan : 1St on 9 June, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.1129 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.1129 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.4934 of 2021
The Superintendent of Police,
Kanniyakumari District,
Nagercoil. : Appellant / Respondent
Vs.
1. N.Padmanabhan : 1st Respondent / Petitioner
2. The Accountant General (A&E),
Tamil Nadu, Chennai. : 2nd Respondent / 2nd Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to
set aside the order dated 08.12.2016, in W.P.(MD)No.8551 of 2010 and allow
the writ appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.A.K.Manickam
Standing Counsel for Government
For R-1 : No Appearance
For R-2 : Mr.P.Gunasekaran
Standing Counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/4
W.A.(MD)No.1129 of 2021
JUDGMENT
***************
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
With the consent on either side, this Writ Appeal is taken up for final
disposal.
2. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order, dated 08.12.2016,
passed in W.P.(MD).No.8551 of 2010, filed by the first respondent.
3. Heard Mr.A.K.Manickam, learned Standing Counsel for
Government appearing for the appellant and Mr.P.Gunasekaran, learned
Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent.
4. The prayer sought for in the Writ Petition is to quash the order
passed by the appellant, dated, 18.06.2010 and for a consequential direction to
the appellant to pay the General Provident Fund amount to the first respondent.
The said order, which was impugned in the writ petition, alleged that the excess
payment to the tune of Rs.1,76,224/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Six Thousand
Two Hundred and Twenty Four only) was paid to the first respondent.
5. This Court, after taking into consideration the facts of the case and
also noting the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1129 of 2021
Punjab Vs. Rafiq Mashi reported in [(2015) 4 SCC 334] held that recovery
cannot be effected from the first respondent as reasons stated by the appellant
would not fall within anyone of the five situations which were spelt out in the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Furthermore, the order impugned in the
writ petition, dated 18.06.2010, was passed much after the first respondent
retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2008.
6. Thus, we find that there is no error in the order passed in the Writ
Petition. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal fails and the same stands dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petition stands closed.
[T.S.S., J.] & [S.A.I., J.]
09.06.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
tsg/pkn
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized
for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy
of the order that is presented is the correct copy,
shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant
concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1129 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
tsg/pkn
To
The Superintendent of Police,
Kanniyakumari District,
Nagercoil.
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A.(MD)No.1129 of 2021
Dated :
09.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
