Madras High Court
Unknown vs The Secretary To Government on 29 October, 2021
W.P.Nos.11532, 11533, 11534 & 16016 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
WP.Nos.11532, 11533, 11534 & 16016 of 2011
and M.P.Nos.2, 2 and 2 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1, 1 and 1 of 2012
WP.No.11532 of 2011
1.R.Ponmudi
2.T.Kumaresan
3.V.Kaviarasu
4.M.Gajendran
5.R.Ananda Padmanaban
6.V.Ravi
7.A.Boopathy
8.K.Karunanithi
9.J.Rajmohan
10.P.Rajamani
11.G.Uthayakumar
12.K.Pandi
13.A.Sankaran
14.V.Shanmuga Sundaram
15.S.Gowri Shankar
16.V.Baskaran
17.S.Kannan
18.C.V.Elangovan
19.J.Rajapandiyan
20.G.Natarajan
21.S.Mannankatti
22.R.Rajendran
23.N.Govindasamy
24.K.Swarnalatha
25.K.Senthil
26.V.Gunasekaran
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1
W.P.Nos.11532, 11533, 11534 & 16016 of 2011
27.S.Muruganandam
28.A.Ganapathi
29.K.Selvam
30.S.Duraisami
31.A.Krishnamoorthy
32.K.Sekharraj
33.S.Sridharan
34.V.Rajan
35.D.Jayabalan
36.D.Balasubramanian
37.C.Selvaraj
38.T.S.Edisan Santhosam
39.M.S.Sivagamasundari
40.C.Selvam
41.P.Thangam
42.R.Kumar
43.A.Anandaraj
44.M.Durgaisamy
45.V.Govindaraj
46.A.Muruganantham
47.D.Vijayasankar
48.T.Karthikeyan
49.R.Ragavan
50.N.Premkumar
51.D.Arulalan
52.K.Sundaravaradan
53.T.G.Rajendran
54.E.Govindaraj
55.P.Vishnu
56.K.Dasarathan
57.N.Jayamoorthy
58.S.Sivakumar
59.J.Kannan
60.R.Eswaran
61.J.Balakumar
62.K.Krishnan
63.K.Ponnupandi
64.S.Natesan
65.M.M.Subramanian
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2
W.P.Nos.11532, 11533, 11534 & 16016 of 2011
66.S.Ramakkrishnan
67.C.Rajasundar
68.N.Parthiban
69.S.Sivasankaran
70.P.Mani
71.K.Selvakumar
72.M.Yuvaraj
73.R.Raghuraman
74.M.Ravi
75.R.Natarajan
76.K.S.Kannan
77.M.Sumathi Samundeeswari
78.D.Vaithiyanathan
79.T.Kaliyaperumal
80.S.Radhakrishnan
81.N.Venkitasamy
82.S.Vijayakumaran
83.G.Sampathkumar
84.A.Ramesh
85.S.Ethiraj
86.J.Jayapriya
87.M.Rajasekar
88.K.Elangovan
89.A.Thiyagarajan
90.D.Ranganathan
91.R.Sekar
92.A.Sugumar
93.R.Srinivasan
94.S.Chandrasekaran
95.K.Namasivayam
96.S.Velivikavalaperumal
97.R.Sarangan
98.G.Kumarasamy
99.S.Venkatesan ... Petitioners
vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Transport Department,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
3
W.P.Nos.11532, 11533, 11534 & 16016 of 2011
St. Fort George,
Chennai-9.
2.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpn.,
[Villupuram] Ltd.,
Vazhutha Reddy Post,
Villupuram & District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the Letter
No.4170/D/2010-3 dated 23.09.2010 and Letter No.18912/D/2010-2 dated
12.04.2011 on the file of the 1st Respondent and Memo
No.014/00014/E1/TNSTC(VPM)/2010 & Memo.No.7668/PB 4/TNSTC
(VPM)/ KPM/2010 dated 15.04.2011 passed by the 2nd Respondent and to
quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the Respondents to pay
House Rent Allowance drawn by the Petitioners all along from 01.10.1984 as
per G.O.[Ms.]No.10 Transport Department dated 02.01.1987.
WP.No.11533 of 2011
1.S.K.Balasubramanian
2.M.Jeevanandam
3.M.Perumalsamy
4.N.Doraisamy
5.A.Rajendiran
6.R.M.Pounraja
7.V.Lawrance
8.B.Subramanian
9.R.Venkatachalam
10.S.Ravilakshmanan
11.V.Muralikrishnan
12.E.Devarajan
13.G,Thirumoorthi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.11532, 11533, 11534 & 16016 of 2011
14.K.Kanakasabapathi
15.R.Bakthavatsalam
16.R.Sayeekrishnan
17.R.Veeramani
18.R.Devaraj
19.K.Senathipathy
20.S.Mayakrishnan
21.S.K.Selvanayagam
22.V.Krishnasamy
23.K.R.Muthusamy
24.T.Pinto Stephen
25.M.Sundaramurthy
26.K.Mohanasundarashanmugam
27.G.Rajendran
28.H.Sureshkumar
29.K.Gandhi
30.J.Gilbert Rajan
31.K.Alagappan
32.R.Mylsamy
33.P.Duraisamy
34.K.Chandrasekaramanoharan
35.S.Abdul Basheer
36.K.S.Mahendrakumar
37.R.Thangavelu
38.G.Rajasekaran
39.N.Jeyachandran
40.K.Ramasamy
41.K.Balasubramanian
42.V.Baladhandapani
43.G.Janarthanan
44.R.Rathakrishnan
45.C.Kanagarajan
46.A.Thevathas
47.D.Thangavelu
48.K.Selvaraju
49.V.Govindasamy
50.M.Kanagaraju
51.K.Chenniappan
52.M.AL.Karuppien
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.11532, 11533, 11534 & 16016 of 2011
53.G.Palanisamy
54.M.Udhayakumar
55.S.Venkatachalapathy
56.K.S.Shanmugavelayutham
57.B.Ganesan
58.Vivekanandham
59.M.Nattudurai
60.K.Gunasekaran
61.V.Chellappan
62.T.Veerukathan
63.A.Muthukrishnan
64.K.T.Govindarajan
65.R.Prabhu
66.S.Sundararajan
67.K.M.Subramaniam
68.S.P.Rajamanickam
69.M.Eganathan
70.V.Ravikumar
71.K.P.Chandrasekaran
72.R.Muthukrishnan
73.O.S.Kuppusamy
74.T.Vairavasundaram
75.R.Mahendran
76.T.C.Raman
77.G.Ganesan
78.R.Mohan
79.M.A.Murugesan
80.K.Palaniyandi
81.P.Shanmugam
82.R.Premkumar ... Petitioners
vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Transport Department,
St. Fort George,
Chennai-9.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.11532, 11533, 11534 & 16016 of 2011
2.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpn.,
[Coimbatore] Ltd.,
37 Mettupalayam Road,
Coimbatore – 641 043. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the Letter
No.4170/D/2010-3 dated 23.09.2010 and Letter No.18912/D/2010-2 dated
12.04.2011 on the file of the 1st Respondent and Letter
No.19367/P1/PBS/TNSTC(CBE)/2011 passed by the 2nd Respondent and to
quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the Respondents to pay
House Rent Allowance drawn by the Petitioners all along from 01.10.1984 as
per G.O.[Ms.]No.10 Transport Department dated 02.01.1987.
WP.No.11534 of 2011
1.Somasundaram R
2.Panneerselvam V
3.Nataraajhan V
4.Chellamuthu K
5.Raju R
6.Balasubramanian S
7.Gunasekaran R
8.Nagarajan P
9.Vasudevan S
10.Rathnam K
11.Kumar D
12.Rangaraj C.R
13.Arumugham N
14.Venkatachalam B
15.Gopalsamy A
16.Laxman D
17.Jeevarathinam S
18.Chinnusamy S
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.11532, 11533, 11534 & 16016 of 2011
19.Jeeva S.K
20.Pugalendhi K
21.Madheswaran K
22.Mohanraja A
23.Murugan K
24.Chandramohan P
25.Sivamani G.K
26.Loganathan M.S
27.Asokan R
28.Balasubramanian R
29.Ramasaamy S
30.Arul Jothi A
31.Baskaran K
32.Kangeyan K
33.Veerappan S
34.Madhavan K
35.Gowrisankar V.K
36.Jaganathan P
37.Kangesan K
38.Rajendran N
39.Murugesan R
40.Alfred Thinakaran D
41.Panneerselvam M
42.Baskaran K
43.Bose M
44.Sudhindar D
45.Sampoornam P
46.Tamizhselvan B
47.Murugesan P
48.Ravindran P
49.Arumugham A
50.Senguttuvan P
51.Ravichandran R
52.Ramesh N
53.Selvakumar P
54.Murugan M
55.Ragupathi V
56.Sekar R
57.Govindasamy M
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.11532, 11533, 11534 & 16016 of 2011
58.Gunasekaran T
59.Rajendran D
60.Mahendran R
61.Sundram M.K
62.Jayakumar A
63.Mohankumar T
64.Aravindan M
65.Jayabalu V.K
66.Arulmozhi G ... Petitioners
vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Transport Department,
St. Fort George,
Chennai-9.
2.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpn.,
[Salem] Ltd.,
12, Ramakrishna Road,
Salem District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the Letter
No.4170/D/2010-3 dated 23.09.2010 and Letter No.18912/D/2010-2 dated
12.04.2011 on the file of the 1st Respondent and Lr.
No.E1/999/TNSTC(SLM)/2011 dated 20.04.2011 passed by the 2nd Respondent
and to quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the Respondents to pay
House Rent Allowance drawn by the Petitioners all along from 01.10.1984 as
per G.O.[Ms.]No.10 Transport Department dated 02.01.1987.
WP.No.16016 of 2011
1.K.Palanivel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.11532, 11533, 11534 & 16016 of 2011
2.M.Subramanian
3.B.Kesavan
4.J.Sasikumar
5.N.Periyasamy
6.M.Kumaravel
7.G.Tamilarasan
8.S.Ravichandran
9.R.Ramesh
10.N.Parthiban
11.K.Sadasivam
12.M.Thirulogachandar
13.P.Ramakrishnan
14.S.Murugesan
15.V.Manoharan
16.V.Subramani
17.M.Kandasamy
18.D.Raja
19.K.Pandiyan
20.M.Abdul Muheem
21.D.Venkatesan
22.P.Palanivel
23.P.Asokan
24.S.Thamaraikannan
25.A.Karunakaran
26.P.D.Baskar
27.A.Thiagarajan
28.M.Loganathan
29.C.Marappan
30.K.Duraisamy
31.R.P.Ravichandhran
32.R.Thangaraju
33.B.Ganesh Kumar
34.N.Elango
35.K.Chandrasekar
36.S.Raja
37.N.Kalaivanan
38.K.Kathirvel
39.P.Mahendran
40.R.Shanmugam
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.11532, 11533, 11534 & 16016 of 2011
41.P.Jayaprakash
42.M.Shajahan
43.A.R.Balraj
44.N.Hariprakash
45.V.Shanthi
46.S.Jayakumar
47.R.Murali
48.M.Ramesh Babu
49.M.Suresh Babu
50.M.Manjuladevi
51.N.Balasubramanian
52.S.M.Khadarmohideen
53.P.Shanmuganathsing,
54.N.Sumathy
55.K.Aruna
56.M.Shanmugavadivu
57.P.Senthil
58.P.Mohan
59.R.Chitra
60.S.Selvakumar
61.V.Sakthivelu
62.M.Pandiyan
63.A.Chezhiyan
64.S.Kulanthasami
65.S.Vivekanandan
66.M.Mahendiran
67.D.Murugesan
68.P.Kanthimathi
69.P.Soundappan
70.P.Subramanian
71.M.Raja
72.A.Prabhakaran ... Petitioners
vs.
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
(Salem) Ltd.,
12, Ramakrishna Road, Salem-7,
Salem District. ... Respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.11532, 11533, 11534 & 16016 of 2011
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue Writ of Mandamus, to direct the Respondent to grant the
revised rates of hourse rent allowance to all the Petitioners as applicable to
Grade I (b) cities and accordingly repay the amount already recoverred and
continue to pay the same in future.
For Petitioners : Mr.L.Chandrakumar (in all WPs)
For Respondents : Mr.C.Selvaraj (for R1 in all WPs)
Government Advocate
Mr.T.Chandrasekaran
(for R2 in WP.Nos.11532 to 11534 of 2011
and for R1 in WP.No.16016 of 2011)
COMMON ORDER
Heard Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the petitioners in all Writ
Petitions, Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned Government Advocate for R1 in
WP.Nos.11532 to 11534 of 2011, Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for
contesting respondent, i.e., R2/Transport Corporation in WP.Nos.11532 to
11534 of 2011 and Mr.S.Magesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for
Mr.D.Raghu, learned counsel for respondent in WP.No.16016 of 2011.
2.On 27.10.2021, I had passed the following order:
'Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in
W.P.Nos.11532 to 11534 of 2011 seeks a days' time to provide the
details of how many petitioners in the aforesaid three Writ Petitions
continue in service and how may have since retired from service.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.11532, 11533, 11534 & 16016 of 2011
2. As far as W.P.No.16016 of 2011 is concerned, since the
erstwhile counsel on record had reported no instructions, the name of
the petitioners as well as the counsel, if any, who has entered
appearance was directed to be printed in the cause list. The cause list
today reflects the name of the petitioner as P1- K.Palanivel, Assistant
Engineer, Salem Muffisil Bus Stand, Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Salem) Ltd., Salem and 71 others. However, there is no
appearance by or on behalf of the petitioners today.
3. Since the facts in W.P.No.16016 of 2011 are identical to
W.P.Nos.11532 to 11534 of 2011, Mr.Magesh, learned counsel
appearing for Mr.Raghu, learned counsel on record for the Transport
Corporation in this Writ Petition is directed to provide the details of
how many of the petitioners in this Writ Petition are in service as on
date and how many have since retired.
4. For this limited purpose, list on 29.10.2021.'
3.Today memos have been filed in respect of the writ petitioners in
WP.Nos.11532, 11533 and 11534 of 2011 to the following effect:-
'WP.No.11532 of 2011
MEMO – REGARDING PETITIONERS WHO ARE IN SERVICE
It is submitted that the above writ petition has been filed seeking
quashing of the respondent's proceedings in regard to alleged excess
payment of House Rent Allowance (HRA) having been disbursed w.e.f.
01.10.1984. This Memo is filed clarifying or rather bringing forth to the
notice of this Hon'ble Court that most of the petitioners have already
retired on reaching the age of superannuation, thereby their claim is
liable to be considered on the basis of the law settled in White Washers'
case reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 – State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Mashi. In
view of the above the petitioners who have retired from service are
entitled to the claim as per the directives and Guidelines issued there
under. However in so far as the following petitioners whose Serial
Number in the array of cause title is mentioned herein below are still
working and continue to discharge duties:- They are Sl.Nos.1, 17, 24, 25,
26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 37, 39, 42, 43, 44, 48, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 69,
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 82, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89 & 93 (38 petitioners).
Thus, recording the above suitable appropriate orders may be passed by
this Hon'ble Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.11532, 11533, 11534 & 16016 of 2011
Hence in the interest of justice, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may be pleased to record the above memo and to pass such other further
or other order as it deem fit and proper and thus render justice.'
WP.No.11533 of 2011
MEMO – REGARDING PETITIONERS WHO ARE IN SERVICE
It is submitted that the above writ petition has been filed seeking
quashing of the respondent's proceedings in regard to alleged excess
payment of House Rent Allowance (HRA) having been disbursed w.e.f.
01.10.1984. This Memo is filed clarifying or rather bringing forth to the
notice of this Hon'ble Court that most of the petitioners have already
retired on reaching the age of superannuation, thereby their claim is
liable to be considered on the basis of the law settled in White Washers'
case reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 – State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Mashi. In
view of the above the petitioners who have retired from service are
entitled to the claim as per the directives and Guidelines issued there
under. However in so far as the following petitioners whose Serial
Number in the array of cause title is mentioned herein below are still
working and continue to discharge duties:- They are Sl.Nos.10, 16, 27,
36, 60, 61, 63, 67, 74, 78 (10 petitioners). Thus, recording the above
suitable appropriate orders may be passed by this Hon'ble Court.
Hence in the interest of justice, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may be pleased to record the above memo and to pass such other further
or other order as it deem fit and proper and thus render justice.'
WP.No.11534 of 2011
MEMO – REGARDING PETITIONERS WHO ARE IN SERVICE
It is submitted that the above writ petition has been filed seeking
quashing of the respondent's proceedings in regard to alleged excess
payment of House Rent Allowance (HRA) having been disbursed w.e.f.
01.10.1984. This Memo is filed clarifying or rather bringing forth to the
notice of this Hon'ble Court that most of the petitioners have already
retired on reaching the age of superannuation, thereby their claim is
liable to be considered on the basis of the law settled in White Washers'
case reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 – State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Mashi. In
view of the above the petitioners who have retired from service are
entitled to the claim as per the directives and Guidelines issued there
under. However in so far as the following petitioners whose Serial
Number in the array of cause title is mentioned herein below are still
working and continue to discharge duties:- They are Sl.Nos.38, 46, 51 &
63 (4 petitioners). Thus, recording the above suitable appropriate orders
may be passed by this Hon'ble Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.11532, 11533, 11534 & 16016 of 2011
Hence in the interest of justice, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may be pleased to record the above memo and to pass such other further
or other order as it deem fit and proper and thus render justice.'
4. The short point argued is that several of the petitioners before this
Court, have retired as on date. However, despite there having been no order of
interim stay granted by this Court, the Transport Corporation has not effected
recovery as per the impugned orders. Thus, as on date, the petitioners who
have retired should not be faced with recovery.
5. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. ((2015) 4 SCC 334),
supports the above argument in full. At paragraph 12, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has laid down following guidelines for effecting recovery:
'.............
12. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which
would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have
mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be
that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a
ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries
by the employers, would be impermissible in law:
(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV
service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to
retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been
made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is
issued.
(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been
required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.11532, 11533, 11534 & 16016 of 2011
accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work
against an inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that
recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or
arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of
the employer's right to recover'
6.In view of the categoric conclusion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to
the effect that recovery should not be proximate to, or post the date of
superannuation of an employee and since, in this case, several of the petitioners
are stated to have retired as on date, without going into the merits of the matter,
the following order is passed:
i) No recovery shall be made in the case of those petitioners who have
retired as on date.
ii) In case of petitioners who continue in service as on date, seeing as the
impugned orders have been admittedly passed without compliance with the
principles of the natural justice, the same stands set aside and the petitioners
shall be heard and orders passed afresh within a period of four (4) weeks from
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7.Mr.Magesh, learned counsel appearing for Mr.D.Raghu would submit
that recovery has been effected in the case of all the employees. In such case,
there is nothing further to be done, except if the recovery was proximate to
retirement or contrary to the specific observations/guidelines framed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.11532, 11533, 11534 & 16016 of 2011
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the White Washers' case (supra). In such cases, it is
open to those petitioners to seek refund of the amount from R2/Corporation by
way of representation.
8.These writ petitions are disposed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
29.10.2021
vs/kbs
Index:Yes
Speaking order
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Transport Department,
St. Fort George,
Chennai-9.
2.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpn.,
[Villupuram] Ltd.,
Vazhutha Reddy Post,
Villupuram & District.
3.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Transport Department,
St. Fort George,
Chennai-9.
4.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpn.,
[Coimbatore] Ltd.,
37 Mettupalayam Road,
Coimbatore – 641 043.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.11532, 11533, 11534 & 16016 of 2011
5.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpn.,
[Salem] Ltd.,
12, Ramakrishna Road,
Salem District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.11532, 11533, 11534 & 16016 of 2011
Dr.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
vs/kbs
WP.Nos.11532, 11533, 11534 &
16016 of 2011 and
M.P.Nos.2, 2 and 2 of 2011 and
M.P.Nos.1, 1 and 1 of 2012
29.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
