Madras High Court
The Management vs C.Periyasamy on 9 August, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
2024:MHC:3029
W.A.No.1947 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 06.08.2024
Pronounced on 09.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.A.No.1947 of 2024
and
C.M.P.No.14013 of 2024
The Management,
P.E.65 Modakkurichi Circle Teachers and
Public Servants Cooperative Thrift and
Credit Society Limited,
Represented by its Administrator,
Modakkurichi – 638 104,
Erode District. ...Appellant
Vs.
1.C.Periyasamy
2.The District Collector,
Erode District,
Erode – 638 011.
3.The Thasildar,
Modakkurichi Taluk,
Erode District – 638 104.
4.The Assistant Commissioner of Labour,
Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
Salem. ...Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 10
W.A.No.1947 of 2024
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, to
set aside the order dated 21.07.2023 in W.P.No.21574 of 2023.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Prakasam
For R1 : Mr.Balan Haridas
For R2 to R4 : Mr.S.John J.Raja Singh,
Additional Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
M.S.RAMESH, J.
The order of the learned Single Judge made in W.P.No.21574 of
2023, dated 21.07.2023, directing the District Collector, Erode, to
conclude the revenue recovery proceedings initiated by the Assistant
Commissioner of Labour, Salem, within a limited period, is put under
under challenge in the present Writ Appeal.
2. The revenue recovery proceedings was initiated for recovery of
the arrears of the subsistence allowance payable to the 1 st respondent
herein, as ordered by the Authority under the Payment of Subsistence
Allowance Act (hereinafter referred to as 'PSA Act') in P.S.A.No.8 of 2016
dated 22.05.2017.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.1. The brief facts leading to the claim of the 1st respondent for
payment of subsistence allowance are that, while he was serving as a
Secretary under the appellant Society and due to retire on 31.01.2015, he
was placed under suspension, through an order dated 30.01.2015, in
contemplation of a departmental action. After about three years, charges
were levelled against him on 13.11.2018 and the departmental action
proceeded therefrom.
3.2. While under suspension, since the appellant had not paid the
1st respondent the mandatory subsistence allowance, he had filed an
application in P.S.A.No.8 of 2016 under the provisions of the PSA Act for
the period between 30.01.2015 and 31.10.2016 under Rule 5 of the Tamil
Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Rules (hereinafter referred to as
'PSA Rules'), on the basis of his last drawn wages of Rs.59,287/- and
claimed a total sum of Rs.11,11,635/-.
3.3. Through an order dated 22.05.2017, the concerned Authority
had allowed the application filed by him and directed for payment of the
subsistence allowance, within a period of 30 days. The appellant had not
challenged the said order by way of an appeal, as provided under Rule 5A
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of the PSA Rules and thus, the order passed in P.S.A.No.8 of 2016 dated
22.05.2017 had become final.
4. In view of the non-compliance, the 1st respondent had
approached the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Salem for recovery of
the subsistence allowance dues. However, when his representations in
this regard were not considered within a reasonable time, he had filed
W.P.No.21754 of 2023 before the learned Single Judge of this Court and
through an order dated 21.07.2023, the following direction was issued:-
“6. Considering the limited request made by
the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court,
without going into the merits of the matter, directed
the first respondent to conclude the Revenue
Recovery Proceedings initiated by the third
respondent dated 06.11.2017 and pass appropriate
orders, on merits and in accordance with law within
a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order, after affording an opportunity
of hearing to the petitioner as well as fourth
respondent.”
5. As against the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
present Writ Appeal had been filed by the appellant.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in case the
1st respondent was aggrieved against the non-payment of the subsistence
allowance, the appropriate remedy available to him would be to file a
revision under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act
and therefore, invoking the provisions of the PSA Act, without availing
the alternate remedy, is not maintainable. He further submitted that
certain surcharge proceedings under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-
operative Societies Act were also pending against the 1 st respondent,
whereby the loss incurred by the Society requires to be recovered from
the arrears of subsistence allowance payable to him and thereby
attempted to justify the inaction of the appellant.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st
respondent submitted that the order of the Authority under the PSA Act,
computing the amount payable to him, has become final. According to
him, the 1st respondent herein had only sought for conclusion of the
revenue recovery proceedings for recovery of the arrears, as ordered in
P.S.A.No.8 of 2016 and the direction made by the learned Single Judge
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
was only for the conclusion of the revenue recovery proceedings within a
stipulated time. When the order in P.S.A.No.8 of 2016 has become final,
any interference to the order of the learned Single Judge will not absolve
the liability of the appellant to pay the subsistence allowance.
8. The grievance of the 1st respondent before the learned Single
Judge was for non-payment of subsistence allowance, for which purpose,
he sought for a direction to the Authorities to complete the proceedings
under the Revenue Recovery Act, within a time frame. The revenue
recovery proceedings, as such, is a consequential proceedings, pursuant
to the order of the Statutory Authority, computing the subsistence
allowance payable to the 1st respondent. The appellant herein had not
preferred an appeal, as provided under Rule 5A of the PSA Rules, against
this order passed by the Statutory Authority and thus, computation of the
subsistence allowance payable to the 1st respondent has become final.
9. Even if any orders are passed touching upon the order of the
learned Single Judge, it would only be a futile exercise, since the liability
of the appellant herein to pay the 1st respondent the arrears of the
subsistence allowance computed by the Authority, in their order passed in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.S.A.No.8 of 2016, will still be in force. However, we do not find any
infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge. When the appellant had
defaulted to pay the amount ordered by the Statutory Authority, Section 4
of the PSA Act empowers the Government to issue a certificate for the
arrears amount and authorize the Collector to recover the same in the
manner as an arrear of land revenue. The learned Single Judge had
directed the appellant to comply with the requirement under Section 4 of
the PSA Act, which powers are well vested with the District Collector.
Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the directions of the learned Single
Judge.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant made a faint attempt to
submit that the remedy available for claim of subsistence allowance
would be under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act
and therefore, the 1st respondent ought not to have approached the
Authorities under the PSA Act. We are not in agreement with such a
submission. If at all the appellant is of the view that the application made
before the Authorities under the PSA Act is not maintainable, in view of
the alternate remedy available under Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies
Act, such objection requires to be made before the Authority under the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
PSA Act. Though the appellant was represented by a Counsel before the
Authority, no such objection was raised therein. This apart, the appellant
has also not challenged the order passed in P.S.A.No.8 of 2016. In these
circumstances, it is not now open to raise such an objection before this
Division Bench in an appeal filed against the order of recovery
proceedings, which is only consequential to the final orders of the
Authority under the PSA Act.
11. For all the foregoing reasons, there are no merits in the present
appeal and hence, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[M.S.R., J] [C.K., J]
09.08.2024
Index:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes
Speaking order
hvk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The District Collector,
Erode District,
Erode – 638 011.
2.The Thasildar,
Modakkurichi Taluk,
Erode District – 638 104.
3.The Assistant Commissioner of Labour,
Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
hvk
Pre-delivery judgment made in
09.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
