Madras High Court
The Management Of Tamil Nadu vs P.Karuppaiah on 5 October, 2021
W.A(MD)No.1548 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
W.A(MD)No.1548 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD)No.6374 of 2021
1.The Management of Tamil Nadu
State Transport Corporation
(Kumbakonam) Limited,
Represented by its Managing Director,
Kumbakonam.
2.The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Kumbakonam) Limited,
Trichy Region,
Trichy.
3.The Assistant Manager (Personnel),
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Kumbakonam) Limited,
Trichy Region,
Trichy. ... Appellants/Respondents
Vs.
P.Karuppaiah ... Respondent/Petitioner
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the order, dated 21.01.2020 made in W.P(MD)No.26680 of
2019 on the file of this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
W.A(MD)No.1548 of 2021
For Appellants : Mr.P.Balasubramanian
For Respondent : Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar
for Mr.A.Rahul
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M.DURAISWAMY,J.)
Challenging the order passed in W.P(MD)No.26680 of 2019
dated 21.01.2020, the respondents in the Writ Petition have filed
the above Writ Appeal.
2.The respondent/writ petitioner has filed the Writ Petition in
W.P(MD)No.26680 of 2019 to issue a Writ of Declaration, to declare
the action of the respondents in recovering a sum of Rs.1,29,938/-
towards recovery of non-implemented punishments of increment
cuts from the petitioner's gratuity as illegal and consequently
directing the respondents to pay the petitioner recovered amount of
Rs.1,29,938/- together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum
payable from 30.09.2016 to till date on which the above amount is
settled to the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)No.1548 of 2021
3.The petitioner was employed as a Conductor in the first
respondent/Corporation and owing to medical grounds, he was
discharged from the services on 30.09.2016. By order dated
19.12.2016, a sum of Rs.1,29,938/- was directed to be recovered
from the gratuity towards non-implemented punishments of
increment cuts, which was earlier imposed against the petitioner.
Against the said order, the respondent filed the Writ Petition.
4.The learned Single Judge, taking into consideration the case
of both sides, allowed the Writ Petition observing that the certified
standing orders does not empower the respondents/Transport
Corporation to recover the amounts paid to the retired employee for
recovery of non-implemented punishments of increment cuts. The
learned Single Judge directed the appellants to refund the amount
together with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of recovery
till the date of actual payments. Challenging this order, the
Transport Corporation has filed the above Writ Appeal.
5.When the Writ Appeal is taken up for hearing,
Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/writ petitioner submitted that the very same issue as to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)No.1548 of 2021
the refund was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in
W.A(MD)No.1270 of 2020 dated 15.06.2021, wherein the Division
Bench held as follows:-
“9. Furthermore, the question as to whether the
Management would be entitled to implement orders of
postponement of increment, which was not implemented
during the period when the workman was in service, was
also considered in the case of J.Arumugam (supra)
and it was held that the same cannot be done and it will
be without jurisdiction. The operative portion of the
judgment reads as follows:
"37. One more important aspect, which we wish to
point out is that, the Management cannot plead
ignorance of the fact that, on the date, when
punishment was imposed on the workmen, the
punishment was not capable of being implemented as
workmen did not have the required remaining years of
service. If that is so, the Management cannot take
shelter under the explanation contained Clause 4 (1) (e)
to suit its own convenience, and the workmen cannot be
put in a disadvantageous position. In such
circumstances, the Management cannot rely on the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kshetrabasi
Mohanti (supra) where, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
considered the correctness of the order by substituting
the punishment for a candidate, who was still in service.
There, it was a case, where, it was not possible for the
Corporation to implement the punishment, but, the case
on hand, is a case, where, the Corporation was fully
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)No.1548 of 2021
aware of remaining years of service in respect of each of
the workmen, yet, chose to pass such orders of
recovery. Thus, the Management, having failed to
convert the punishment of stoppage of increment to that
of order of recovery of monetary value, when the
workmen were in service, it cannot turn around and say
that those orders could be implemented by invoking
Clause 25 (iv) (b) of the Certified Standing Orders."”
6.While coming to the conclusion that the appellants/Transport
Corporation has no jurisdiction to pass an order of recovery after
retirement to recover non implemented orders of punishment to
postponement of increment also followed the ratio laid down by the
Division Bench of this Court in W.A(MD)No.465 of 2017 etc.,
batch dated 30.06.2017 (the Management of Tamil Nadu
State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam and others Vs.
J.Arumugam and another). The learned Single Judge while
allowing the Writ Petition also followed the ratio laid down in
Arumugam's case.
7.Mr.P.Balasubramanian, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants has not produced any contra judgment in support of the
Management.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)No.1548 of 2021
8.In view of the reasons stated above, the following ratio laid
down by the Division Bench of this Court made in W.A(MD)No.1270
of 2020 dated 15.06.2021 and in W.A(MD)No.465 of 2017 etc.,
batch dated 30.06.2017, we do not find any ground to interfere with
the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the Writ
Appeal is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. The
appellants are directed to refund the amount as directed by the
learned Single Judge within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[M.D.,J] [K.M.S.,J.]
05.10.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
indu/ps
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.1548 of 2021
To
1.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Kumbakonam) Limited,
Kumbakonam.
2.The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Kumbakonam) Limited,
Trichy Region,
Trichy.
3.The Assistant Manager (Personnel),
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Kumbakonam) Limited,
Trichy Region,
Trichy.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)No.1548 of 2021
M.DURAISWAMY,J.
and
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
indu/ps
W.A(MD)No.1548 of 2021
05.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
