Shanmugathai.P v. The Management of

ORDER By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶2The writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order, dated 17.06.2020 with consequential relief to direct the Respondent to refund the amount of Rs.90,220/- which was recovered from the terminal benefits of the deceased employee namely, Late.C.Periyasamy, with 6% p.a., towards the un-effective punishment.

¶3The petitioner is the wife of the deceased employee namely, Late. C.Periyasamy, who died on 27.02.2020. After his death, the respondents had disbursed the terminal benefits through the impugned order, dated 17.06.2020. In the said order the respondents have stated that they have deducted a sum of Rs.90,220/- towards the balance of unimplementable punishment. The relevant portion is extracted here under: "Vw;fdNt ,ilf;fhy epthuzkhf toq;fg;gl;l &.5>000-I (&gha; Ie;jhapuk; kl;Lk;) FLk;g ey epjpapYk;> mKy;gLj;j Kbahj jz;lid fhy epYit njhif &.90>220-<l;ba tpLg;G rk;gsj;jpy; gpbj;jk; nra;aTk;."

¶4The issue of deducting the amount from the monetary benefits of the employee towards unimplementable punishment was dealt with by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.(MD)No.1270 of 2020, vide order, dated 15.06.2021, it has been held as under: "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."

¶5The Hon'ble Division Bench has also referred another judgment rendered in the case of Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., and others Vs. J.Arumugam and another in W.A.(MD).No.465 of 2013 etc., batch dated 30.06.2017, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench had held the respondent is not empowered to recovery any amount.

¶6Following the aforesaid judgments this Court has allowed writ petitions in W.P.(MD)No.18250 of 2016, W.P.(MD)No.5532 of 2018, W.P.(MD)No.1294 and W.P.(MD)No.26887 of 2019 vide order dated

16.12.2022. Also allowed W.P.(MD)No.7988 of 2017 vide order dated

14.02.2023.

¶7Therefore this Court is of the considered opinion that unimplementable punishment cannot be a ground to deduct any amount from terminal benefits, since any punishment beyond the retirement cannot be implemented. Moreover, it cannot also be implemented, if the employee died. Therefore, the respondents ought not to have deducted the said amount since the said amount comes under the "unimplementable punishment" category.

¶8Hence the impugned order as far as it deducted the amount is illegal and the same is liable to be quashed and that portion of the impugned order alone is quashed. Consequently, the respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs.90,220/- which was deducted from the terminal benefits of the petitioner's husband / deceased employee

(Late)C.Periyasamy. The said exercise shall be completed, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶9With the above directions, this Writ Petition is allowed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Index : Yes / No

17.04.2023 Internet : Yes

ksa S.SRIMATHY, J ksa W.P.(MD)No.8586 of 2023

17.04.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.04.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY W.P.(MD)No. 8586 of 2023 and W.M.P(MD)No.7889 of 2023 P.Shanmugathai ... Petitioner Vs. The Management of Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli ) Limited, Represented by its General Manager, Tirunelveli. ... Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the respondent, dated 17.06.2020 passed in Se.Mu.A.No. 5308/Nir10/TNSTC/ Thili/20, quash the same and consequently direct the Respondent to refund the amount Rs.90,220/- recovered from the terminal benefits of the deceased husband of the petitioner/employee (Late) C.Periyasamy, Staff No.10515 as towards the value of un-effected punishments of increment cut, together with 6 percent interest p.a., award cost. For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondents : Mr.D.Jebarai, Standing Counsel