Balakrishnan.K v. The Management of

ORDER Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶2The petitioner retired from service on 31.12.2018. The impugned order came to be passed for enforcing unimplemented increment cut. It has been held time and again that such orders cannot be passed. My attention is drawn to the order dated 15.06.2021 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.(MD)No.1270 of 2020 (State Express Transport Corporation (Tamil Nadu) Ltd., Vs. G.Senthil). The case on hand is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision. The impugned order is set aside. The respondent shall refund the withhold amount. If the respondent refunds the said amount within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, it will not carry interest. If the respondent fails to make refund within twelve weeks, the respondent will have to pay interest from the date of the petitioner's retirement. The impugned order is set aside.

¶3The Writ Petition is allowed on these terms. No costs.

19.04.2023 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No rmi

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. rmi

19.04.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 19.04.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN K.Balakrishnan ... Petitioner Vs. The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Rep. By its Managing Director, Kumbakonam. ... Respondent Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to refund the amount Rs.21,600/- recovered from the terminal benefits of the petitioner as towards unimplemented increment cut punishment together with 6% interest p.a. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arunachalam For Respondent : Mr.K.Jagadeesbalan Standing Counsel