Madras High Court
V.Sankaran vs Tamil Nadu State Transport on 28 October, 2024
Author: Battu Devanand
Bench: Battu Devanand
W.P.No.23078 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 28.10.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
W.P.No.23078 of 2019
V.Sankaran ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
3/137. Salamedu,
Villupuram 605 602.
2. The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd.,
Vellore Region,
Rangapuram,
Vellore 632 009.
3. The Assistant Manager (Pay and Administration),
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
Villupuram Ltd.,
Vellore Region,
Rangapuram,
Vellore 632 009.
4. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporations
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23078 of 2019
Employees' Pension Trust,
Rep. by its Administrator,
Thiruvalluvar Illam, Pallavan Salai,
Chennai 2. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus after calling for records
pertaining to the order dated 04.03.2019 passed by the third respondent in
Memo No.090/Sa-Ni27/TNSTC (V) Ltd – Vellore Region / 2018, quash the
same insofar as directing the petitioner to remit a sum of Rupees
Rs.6,84,000/- towards monetary value of unimplemented punishments of
stoppage of increments with cumulative effect and a sum of Rs.1,08,000/-
towards monetary value of unimplemented punishments of stoppage of
increments without cumulative effect and the condition imposed by him that
they could not settle his terminal benefits only if he pay the said amounts
and consequently direct the respondents to settle him all the terminal
benefits, such as monthly pension, Gratuity, Commutative Value of Pension,
Earned Leave Salary, the amounts payable under the Family benefit fund
scheme and social security scheme, IRT contributions, etc., without insisting
him to pay the above amounts consequential benefits, together with interest
at the rate of 12% per annum and within a specified time as may be fixed by
this Court.
For Petitioner : Ms.G.K.Darshini
For Respondents : M/s.S.Pavithra, Standing Counsel
2/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23078 of 2019
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order
bearing dated 04.03.2019 passed by the third respondent wherein the
petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.6,84,000/- and another sum of
Rs.1,08,000/- towards monetary value of unimplemented punishments of
stoppage of increments and consequently direct the respondents to settle him
all the terminal benefits, such as monthly pension, Gratuity, Commutative
Value of Pension, Earned Leave Salary, the amounts payable under the
Family benefit fund scheme and social security scheme, IRT contributions,
etc., without insisting him to pay the above amounts consequential benefits,
together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials
available on record.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner joined as conductor
in the first respondent Corporation on 24.05.1990. Subsequently, he was
made permanent and brought to time scale of pay w.e.f. 15.05.1991 and he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
retired from service on 31.05.2018. The third respondent issued an order
dated 04.03.2019 informing the petitioner that his retirement benefits will be
paid only after payment of a sum of Rs.8,00,961/- to the corporation by the
petitioner. The reason stated by the respondents for issuing the said order is
that due to non implementation of the punishment of increment of the
petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed this writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
order is unreasonable, irrational and injustice. He contends that if the order
of punishment of postponement of increment for a particular period could
not be implemented due to intervention of retirement, then the order cannot
be implemented after retirement by way of recovery, as it would amount to
punishing the employee even after retirement.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the
order impugned in this writ petition is violative of the principles of the
natural justice, due to the reason that the petitioner was not given any
opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned order. The learned
counsel further contends that the action of the respondents in not paying
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
commuted value of pension and monthly pension is also arbitrary and
violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. Finally, the learned counsel
sought for allowing the writ petition with a direction to pay retirement
benefits to the petitioner forthwith.
6. On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit has been filed. The
learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents by relying on the
counter affidavit submits that during the course of the petitioner's
employment, he had involved in many misconducts and the Corporation has
imposed various punishment on the petitioner.
7. The learned counsel further submits that the respondent
Management informed the petitioner vide letter dated 04.03.2019 that a sum
of Rs.8,00,961/- being the monetary value of unimplemented punishment is
to be paid by the petitioner, in accordance with law as per Wage Settlement
agreement made on 04.01.2018 and retrospective effect from 01.09.2016
between Trade Unions and the Corporation Managements under the Terms
of Settlement. He was further informed that if the petitioner pays the said
amount, he can receive the payment towards his terminal benefit. But he did
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
not approach the respondents till date. As such, no interference requires in
the impugned order and sought for dismissing the writ petition.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the
judgment of this Court in the case of R.Kandasamy Vs. Tamil Nadu State
Corporation (Salem) Limited reported in CDJ 2024 MHC 996 and would
submit that in identical circumstances, this court considered the case of the
petitioner therein and quashed the impugned order and issued certain
directions to the respondents to disburse the deducted amount.
9. This Court carefully perused the said judgment. A learned Single
Judge of this Court by following the judgment of the Division Bench of
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in the case of State Transport
Corporation rep. By Managing Director Vs. Senthil and another dated
15.06.2021 allowed the writ petition. The relevant paragraphs of the
Division Bench Judgment are extracted hereunder:
7. The above condition states that the increment
postponement orders which could not be implemented prior to
the superannuation of the employee can be implemented, but
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
only in accordance with the Common Service Rules and the
Standing Orders which are applicable to the organization. This
question was considered in the case of J.Arumugam (supra), as
first among the several issues and it was held that there is no
provision in the Certified Standing Orders enabling the
Management to pass orders of recovery as passed in the instant
case. In fact, the Court held that the Common Service Rules are
not applicable to the workmen and there is no Standing Order
framed by the Management and only Certified Standing Orders
are in vogue and the Certified Standing Orders do not provide
for any such recovery. The operative portion of the judgment
reads as follows:
“5. Before deciding the merits of the case, firstly, it has
to be seen, as to, under which Rule, the workmen of the
Management are governed by. It is admitted by the
Management that the workmen are governed by Certified
Standing Orders, framed for the employees of the
Management/Corporation by the Appellate Authority under the
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946 (supra),
but, contrary to the same, the impugned orders of recovery
were passed by the Management, by following the provisions of
the Common Service Rules, viz., Rule 4 (1) (e). Pitted with this
position, the learned counsel for the Management submitted
that the Management has no option, except, to opt for Rule 4
(1) (e) of the Common Service Rules, for, the workmen suffered
punishment of withholding of increment, which could not be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
given effect to, as the workmen did not have the requisite
remaining years of service. That apart, such a remedy is not
found in the Certified Standing Orders. This submission is
untenable, for the reason that, when the Management has
admitted that the workmen are governed by the Rules framed
under the Certified Standing Orders, in violation to the same, it
cannot follow Rule 4 (1) (e) of the Common Service Rules, by
invoking Clause 25 (1) (iv) (b) of the Certified Standing
Orders. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the
orders passed by the Management, recovering three times the
monetary value equivalent to the amount of increment, are
without jurisdiction, as there is no such provision in the
Certified Standing Orders, enabling the Management to pass
such orders. Therefore, on that ground, the impugned orders
are required to be set aside.”
8. Therefore, the contention of the appellant-
Management that Clause 8 of the 12(3) Settlement provides for
passing such an order in an Organisation, is stated to be
rejected. Clause 8 cannot be used as a tool or a source of
power to recover money from the workman, especially, when
the Settlement only states that it can be done so, if there is a
provision under the Common Service Rules or the Standing
Orders.
9. Furthermore, the question as to whether the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.”
10. In the light of the above legal principle and having
found that there is no provision in the Certified Standing
Orders to pass orders of recovery at the verge of retirement or
after retirement proposing to recover the unimplemented
orders of punishment of postponement of increment, is wholly
without jurisdiction. Hence, for the reasons set out by the
learned Single Bench as well as the reasons which we have
observed supra, the order passed in the writ petition does not
call for interference. The learned Single Bench has allowed the
writ petition as prayed for, which would mean that the
respondent-workman is also entitled to claim interest at 18%
per annum. In our considered view, 18% interest would be too
exorbitant and we are of the view that a time frame can be
fixed for the respondent-Management to settle the amount of
Rs.75,900/- and accordingly directed to pay the said sum
within a period of 12 weeks, failing which, the Management is
directed to settle the amount together with the interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of order passed in the writ
petition, namely, 28.07.2020, till the claim is settled.
10. On perusal of the above judgment, it is clear that the respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
are not empowered under Standing Orders who passed orders for recovery at
the verge of the retirement proposing to recover the unimplemented orders
of punishment of postponement of increment, is wholly without jurisdiction.
The said decision is squarely applicable to the present case also.
Accordingly, by following the judgment stated supra, this Court is inclined
to issue the following orders:
“(i) The impugned order dated 04.03.2019 passed by the third
respondent is hereby quashed; and
(ii) The respondents are directed to pay all terminal benefits for which
the petitioner is legally entitled for, within a period of six weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
11. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is
allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
No costs.
28.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
pvs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd.,
3/137. Salamedu,
Villupuram 605 602.
2. The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd.,
Vellore Region,
Rangapuram,
Vellore 632 009.
3. The Assistant Manager (Pay and Administration),
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
Villupuram Ltd.,
Vellore Region,
Rangapuram,
Vellore 632 009.
4. The Administrator,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporations
Employees' Pension Trust,
Thiruvalluvar Illam, Pallavan Salai,
Chennai 2.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
BATTU DEVANAND.J.,
pvs
28.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
