Partly allowed

C.Chinnakannu v. the Deputy Executive Officer

Madras HC18 Aug 2014WP/22084/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, suspended since 2005 and barred from retirement, sought 75% subsistence allowance. The Court refused payment direction as it would exceed his provisional pension limit. However, it directed the Government to finally decide the pending proposal within four months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Secretary to Government to pass orders on the pending disciplinary proposal within four months.

C.Chinnakannu Vs the Deputy Executive Officer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 18.08.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

¶5

W.P.NO.22084 OF 2012

¶6

C.Chinnakannu .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The Deputy Executive Officer
Khadi & Village Industries Board
Kuralagam,
Chennai – 108.
2.The Asst. Director of Khadi &
Village Industries Board
Kanchipuram.
3.The Secretary to Government
Handloom, Textiles and Khadi Craft Department
Government of Tamil Nadu
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
(R3 – suo motu impleaded vide order
dated 18.08.2014 in W.P.No.22084/2012) .. Respondents

¶7

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to draw and disburse the subsistence allowance @ 75% p.m. ordered by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.11649/E4(2)/2011 dated 19.12.2011.

¶8

Heard both sides. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

2.The petitioner was working as a Superintendent in the respondent Board, which is equivalent to the post of Village Industrial Co-operative Officer, coming under Group “B”. He was placed under suspension on 29.03.2005 and by an order dated 29.10.2005, he was not permitted to retire from service, when he reached the age of superannuation and he was continued in suspension.

¶11

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that he is paid only 50% of the wages as subsistence allowance, while he is entitled to 75% of the wages as subsistence allowance. Hence, he has filed this writ petition, seeking for a direction to the respondents to pay him 75% of the wages as subsistence allowance.

¶12

4.Counter affidavit is filed by the first respondent, wherein it is stated that though the first respondent issued order revising the subsistence allowance from 50% to 75%, the same was not paid @ 75% since the amount exceeded the provisional pension eligible to him. In this regard, para 6 of the counter affidavit is extracted hereunder:

¶13

“6...... As per the rules contained in FR and also the instructions issued by the Government from time to time, the subsistence allowance of the individual kept under suspension beyond the date of retirement should not exceed the provisional pension that would be eligible for him if he is permitted to retire on the date of his superannuation. Further beyond the date of his retirement, the pensioner is not eligible for sanction of HRA and CCA along with his subsistence allowance. Though the first respondent issued orders revising the subsistence allowance payable to the petitioner from 50% to 75%, while calculating the subsistence allowance due to the petitioner @ 75%, it is found that the said amount exceeded the provisional pension eligible to him which is violation to the instructions contained in FR and existing Government Orders. This was also objected by the Audit and hence the orders revising the subsistence allowance of the petitioner from 50% to 75% issued by the first respondent could not be given effect to by the second respondent.”

¶14

5.In view of the same, I am not inclined to issue direction as sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition.

¶15

6.Today, the learned counsel for the respondent Board has produced a written instruction dated 16.08.2014 received from the first respondent and the same is extracted hereunder:

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

“THE DETAILS OF THE DISCIPLINARY AND CRIMINAL CASES PENDING AGAINST THIRU C. CHINNAKANNU SUPERINTENDENT / VILLAGE INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE OFFICER (UNDER SUSPENSION)

¶18

1)Charges were framed under regulation 34(b) of Tamilnadu Khadi and Village Industries Board's service regulations against Thiru C.Chinnakannu Superintendent / Village Industrial Co-operative Officer for having committed certain serious irregularities while working as liquidator in the Reid Timber and Black smithy Co-operative Society, Thiruvottiyur, by creating – bogus receipts, writing false accounts, lettering out of the society on rent etc., thereby causing loss to the tune of Rs.20.00 lakhs.

¶19

2)Charges were framed under regulation 34(b) of Tamilnadu Khadi and Village Industries Board's service regulations against the above individual for having committed certain irregularities noticed in the sale of land and building of Sembarambakkam Hand Pounding rice Co-operative Society and loss to the tune of Rs.3.19 lakhs when he worked as a Special Officer of the above society.

¶20

In the above two disciplinary actions, all the formalities have been completed since he is coming under B group officer necessary proposal was sent to Government for issuing final order vide Board's letter dated 7.12.2011. The Government have called for further particulars to the Board the same was sent to the Government on 18.03.2014. The criminal case is pending against the individual in the same issue.

¶21

3)Charges were framed under regulation 34(b) of Tamilnadu Khadi and Village Industries Board's service regulations against the above individual for having committed certain irregularities noticed in the lease of land belonging to Thiruvottiyur Cooperative Society land in the society without getting prior permission from the Chief Executive Officer / Registrar (when he worked as the Special Officer). Final report was received and the same is under process.

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

CRIMINAL ACTION:

¶24

1)Criminal case filed against him in Cr.No.3/2006 under section 408, 409, 467, 468, 471, 477(A) 109 IPC dated 31.1.2000 by the Inspector of Police, CCIW, CID, Kancheepuram relating to the irregularities noticed in the Thiruvottiyur Reid Timber Co-operative Society. The case is pending in the Judicial Magistrate – I Court Kancheepuram.

¶25

2)Criminal case filed against him in Cr.No.2/2007 under Section 408, 468, 477(A) IPC dated .... by the Inspector of Police, CCIW, CID, Kancheepuram relating to the irregularities noticed in the Sembarapakkam Hand Pounding Rice Co-operative Society. The case is pending in the Judicial Magistrate – I Court Kancheepuram.

¶26

He was placed under suspension on 29.03.2005.

¶27

Since he attained his age of superannuation on 31.10.05 and since three charges and two criminal cases were pending on him on the above date, he was not permitted to retire on the date of his superannuation but orders under FR 56(1)(c) issued on him placing the petitioner under deemed suspension beyond the date of retirement.”

¶28

7.In these circumstances, I am of the view that the third respondent Government shall pass orders on the proposal dated 07.12.2011 of the first respondent. Further, it is stated in para 2 of the written instructions that when the Government sought for further particulars, the same was also given on 18.03.2014. Hence, there is no reason for the Government to keep the proposal pending for the past three years, particularly when the employee retired from service long back in 2005.

¶29

8.In the light of the statement made in para 2 of the written instructions, the Secretary to Government, Handloom, Textiles and Khadi Craft Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009 is suo motu impleaded as third respondent in the writ petition and the impleaded third respondent is directed to pass orders on the proposal dated 07.12.2011 of the respondent Board, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four months from today.

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶31

9.The writ petition is disposed of with the above observation and direction. No costs.

¶32

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
TK
To
1.The Deputy Executive Officer
Khadi & Village Industries Board
Kuralagam, Chennai – 108.
2.The Asst. Director of Khadi &
Village Industries Board
Kanchipuram.
3.The Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu
Handloom, Textiles and Khadi Craft Department
Government of Tamil Nadu
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
1 cc to Mr.S.K.Bose ,Advocate, SR.No.37711
1 cc to Government Pleader,Sr.No37768
W.P.NO.22084 OF 2012
sk(co)
pmk.19.8.2014

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

C.Chinnakannu v. the Deputy Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Chinnakannu v. the Deputy Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.R.Muthu Saravanan Vs the State of Tamilnadu

R.Sundari Vs the Director

V.Krishnakumar Vs Gagan

Tmt.S.Bhakkiam Vs the Superintending of Engineer

Dr.G.Korakumari Vs State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Vs the Chairman & Managing