The Superintending Engineer vs 7 The Presiding Officer
2023 Latest Caselaw 7111 Mad

                                                                                   W.A. No.94 of 2023

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED: 27.06.2023

                                                      CORAM:

                                   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN

                                                         and

                                     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR

                                      W.A. No.94 of 2023 & C.M.P. No.910 of 2023

             The Superintending Engineer
             Tirupattur Electricity Distribution Circle
             Tamil Nadu Electricity Board/Tirupattur
             Vellore District                                                  Appellant

                                                          v
             1         S. Abdul Salam

             2         Dhilshath Begum

             3         Athick Ahmed

             4         S. Shafeek Ahmed

             5         S. Asma

             6         S. Tasneem

             7         The Presiding Officer
                       Labour Court
                       Vellore                                                 Respondents

             (RR 2 to 6 brought on record as legal
             representatives of R1 vide order dated
             27.06.2023 in C.M.P. No.8940 of 2023.)

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis



             1/6
                                                                                           W.A. No.94 of 2023

                       Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the

             order dated 06.09.2021 passed in W.P. No.31500 of 2004.

                                        For appellant       Mr. P. Subramanian
                                        R1                  Died
                                        For RR 2 – 6        No appearance

                                                        JUDGMENT

To avoid verbosity, the parties are adverted to as per their rank in this writ

appeal.

2 The facts leading to the filing of this writ appeal are succinctly stated

below.

2.1 The first respondent was working as Revenue Supervisor in the

petitioner Board when he retired from service on 30.09.1996. While so, when he

was in service, in December 1988, his pay was revised and fixed at Rs.2,000/- and

accordingly, he was paid the revised pay till June 1993.

2.2 While so, the petitioner Board, vide order dated 05.06.1993, ordered

recovery of Rs.4,390/- from the first respondent in 15 monthly instalments, on the

ground that the first respondent's pay was erroneously fixed as Rs.2,000/- instead

of Rs.1,940/- and that the same was detected only during audit, and the said

amount was also recovered from the first respondent. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A. No.94 of 2023

2.3 Aggrieved, the first respondent filed a petition in C.P. No.348 of

2003 before the seventh respondent-Labour Court seeking refund of Rs.4,390/-

together with interest of Rs.4,566/-, totally, Rs.8,956/-, in which, vide order dated

05.07.2004, the seventh respondent, observing that the petitioner Board is not

right in sleeping over the matter and ordering recovery of pay wrongly fixed in

1988, directed refund Rs.4,390/- to the first respondent.

2.4 Thereagainst, the petitioner Board filed a writ petition being

W.P.No.31500 of 2004, which came to be dismissed by the Single Bench vide

order dated 06.09.2021 directing the petitioner Board to pay a sum of Rs.4,390/-

plus interest @ 12% per annum from 05.07.2004, being the date of the order

passed by the seventh respondent, besides imposing costs of Rs.50,000/- payable

to the first respondent.

2.5 The aforesaid order dated 06.09.2021 passed by the Single Bench is

under assail in this writ appeal.

3 Today, Mr. P. Subramianian, learned counsel for the petitioner Board

submitted that the amount ordered to be refunded by the seventh respondent has

already been deposited by the petitioner Board with the seventh respondent. He

further submitted that the petitioner is a public sector undertaking and the first https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A. No.94 of 2023

respondent had filed the claim petition in 2003 seeking refund of the amount

recovered vide order passed in 1993 with a delay of ten years and such being the

background, imposition of costs of Rs.50,000/- will set a bad precedent, especially

when there is no fault attributable to the petitioner Board.

4 The first respondent is no more and his legal representatives have

been brought on record and despite effecting paper publication and printing their

names in the cause list, they have not appeared before this Court.

5 Be it noted, imposition of costs is the discretion of the Court and the

Single Bench has exercised its powers in regard thereto. Under normal

circumstances, we would not interfere with in matters such as this. However, as

rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner Board, we should not

lose sight of the fact that there is an inordinate delay of ten years on the part of the

first respondent in filing the computation petition before the seventh respondent

seeking refund.

6 In such perspective of the matter, we set aside the impugned order

passed by the Single Bench only insofar as it relates to imposition of costs of

Rs.50,000/- and the other portion of the order of the Single Bench remains intact.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A. No.94 of 2023

This writ appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Connected C.M.P. is

closed.

(S.V.N., J.) (K.R.S., J.) 27.06.2023 cad To

The Superintending Engineer Tirupattur Electricity Distribution Circle Tamil Nadu Electricity Board/Tirupattur Vellore District

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A. No.94 of 2023

S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.

and

K. RAJASEKAR, J.

cad

W.A. No.94 of 2023

27.06.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis