Velvendan .N v. The Managing Director

ORDER The present writ petition is for a Writ of Declaration, declaring the action of respondents transport Corporation, which had recovered a sum of Rs.1,84,736/- amounts and date of recovery is as follows:

1.Rs.1,40,000/- on 05.03.2021,

2.Rs.4800/- on 05.05.2021,

3.Rs.39,936/- on 23.11.2021 towards non - implementable punishment imposed on the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to refund the petitioner the recovery amount of Rs.1,84,736/- along with 6% per annum.

¶2By consent of both parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶3The petitioner joined the respondent Corporation as Driver on

19.06.1987. Thereafter, he retired voluntarily from service as Senior Driver on

31.08.2021, while he was working at the respondents Branch at Lalgudi. At the verge of the petitioner's retirement, the second respondent imposed non-implementable punishment of increment cuts and the petitioner paid Rs.1,40,000/- on 05.03.2021, Rs.4,800/- on 05.05.2021 and Rs.39,936/- on

23.11.2021. In totally, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.1,84,736/-. For which, the second respondent duly issued receipt also. Such a payment was done by the petitioner at the verge of the second respondent's threat that unless and until he paid the same, his terminal benefits would not be sanctioned. It is atrocious on the part of the second respondent to direct the petitioner to pay such a hefty amount without prior notice and the same is against the principles of natural justice. Such an act of the respondent Corporation in recovering an amount of Rs.1,84,736/- from the petitioner towards non-implemented punishment of increment cuts is illegal.

¶4This matter is already covered by the judgments of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A(MD)Nos.886 and 887 of 2017 vide order, dated 12.07.2017 and W.A(MD)No.1270 of 2020, dated 15.06.2021. Hence, in view of the same, the respondents are bound to settle the recovered amount to the petitioner immediately. The non settlement of such amount would amount to the violation of right to livelihood of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and hence, this writ petition came to be filed.

¶5Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent and the learned Counsel for the second respondent and carefully perused the materials available on record.

¶6The learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent fairly conceded that the petitioner is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.1,84,736/- and however, he objected to the payment of 6% interest, which is claimed by the petitioner in his prayer.

¶7This Court is inclined to follow the common judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A(MD)Nos.886 and 887 of 2017 wherein, this Court dealt with the similar case and the relevant portion of which is extracted as follows: "4. The learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation could not dispute the factual position that in the standing orders applicable to employees / respective first respondents there is no provision to effect such recoveries. The learned Single Judge following the order, dated 24.02.2015, rendered by an earlier Division Bench in W.A(MD)Nos.52 to 54 of 2015, held that permitting the Corporation to deduct the "non implemented punishment of increment cuts" cannot be considered as just or equitable. The case on hand is clearly covered by the aforesaid earlier Division Bench decision and the learned Single Judge was right in the following same."

¶8In view of the same, this Court is inclined to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring the action of the respondent Transport Corporation recovering an amount of Rs.1,84,736/- from the petitioner towards non - implementable punishment of increment cuts imposed on the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to refund the petitioner to the recovered amount.

¶9With the above said observation, this writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

11.07.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes BTR To

1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited, Kumbakonam, Tanjore District.

2.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited, Trichy Region, Periyamilaguparai, Trichirappalli.

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

BTR

11.07.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.07.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI N.Velvendan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited, Kumbakonam, Tanjore District. 2.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited, Trichy Region, Periyamilaguparai, Trichirappalli. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring the action of respondents transport Corporation which had recovered a sum of Rs.1,84,736/- amounts and date of recovery is as follows: 1.Rs.1,40,000/- on 05.03.2021, 2.Rs.4800/- on 05.05.2021, 3.Rs.39,936/- on 23.11.2021 towards non - implementable punishment imposed on the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to refund the petitioner the recovery amount of Rs.1,84,736/- along with 6% per annum. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj For R-1 : Mr.K.Jegadeesh Balan Standing Counsel For R-2 : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh