Allowed

A.Palanisamy v. the Assistant Director

Madras HC27 Nov 2014WP/8513/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging illegal recovery of funds from a retiring employee after the amount was duly paid by the employee against whom liability was assessed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to receive Rs.47,135/- with 9% interest from 26.04.2002 within eight weeks.

What the court decided

A.Palanisamy Vs the Assistant Director — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 27.11.2014

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

¶5

Writ Petition No.8513 of 2007 (O.A.No.6224 of 2002)

¶6

A.Palanisamy ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Assistant Director,
Regional Town Panchayat Office,
Panagal Building, Thanjavur.
2.The District Collector,
Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.
3.The Executive Officer,
Town Panchayat
Mellatur, Thanjavur ... Respondents
(R3 impleaded as per order dated
17.11.2014 by DHPJ in M.P.No.1/2014)
This petition came to be numbered by transfer of O.A.No.6224
of 2002 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal,
praying for a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to
disburse the sum of Rs.47,135/- with interest.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mrs.R.Meenakshi For Respondents : Mr.S.P.Prabhaharan Addl.Govt.Pleader

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

The petitioner filed O.A.No.6224 of 2002. On abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.8513 of 2007.

¶10

The petitioner entered into the services of the first respondent department in the year 1967. While the petitioner was working as an Executive Officer in the Melattur Town Panchayat District in Thanjavur District, an audit objection was raised and an amount of Rs.47,135/- was directed to be recovered from the petitioner with regard to transfer of 4.285 MT of Tar to Ammapettai Town Panchayat, as the Ammapettai Town Panchayat did not give https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ credit to the aforesaid quantity of Tar. The petitioner was due to

¶11

retire on 30.04.2002. Since he was not permitted to retire, the petitioner was constrained to deposit the sum of Rs.47,135/-.

¶12

A reply affidavit was filed by respondents 1 and 2 stating that they are not responsible for the repayment of the amount, as the petitioner had deposited the said amount to Melattur Town Panchayat. The petitioner had failed to implead the necessary party i.e, The Executive Officer, Town Panchayat, Melattur. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the writ petition for non-joinder of necessary parties.

¶13

Hence, the petitioner has filed M.P.No.1 of 2014 to implead the Executive Officer, Town Panchayat, Melattur as party third respondent and the said petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 17.11.2014.

¶14

A reply affidavit is filed by the third respondent seeking to dismiss the writ petition.

¶15

Heard both sides.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice the proceedings of the Regional Deputy Director of Local Fund Audit, Thanjavur in Na.Ka.No.A 6/1234/2002, dated 05.04.2002 addressed to the District Collector, Thanjavur. According to the petitioner, a perusal of the said proceedings would make it clear that the audit objection has no basis and recovery should have been made from the Executive Officer, Ammapettai.

¶17

The following passage from the proceedings of the Regional Deputy Director of Local Fund Audit, dated 05.04.2002 relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is extracted in this regard :-

¶18

"nkYk; ghgehrk; kw;Wk; mk;khngl;il ngU:uhl;rpfspy; jhh; ,Ug;g[ gjpntLfis rhpghh;j;jnghJ ghgehrk; ngU:uhl;rpapy; bkyl;L:h; ngU:uhl;rpf;F 7/956 khw;wpajhff; fhz;gpf;fg;gltpy;iy/ mk;khngl;il ngU:uhl;rpapy; 4/285 bk/ld; jhh; tubtLf;fg;gltpy;iy/ vdnt ghgehrk; ngU:uhl;rpapypUe;J 7/956 bk/ld; jhh; khw;whky; khw;wpajhf tubtLj;jJk; bkyl;L:h; ngU:uhl;rpapypUe;J mk;khngl;il ngU:uhl;rpf;F 4/285 bk/ld; khw;wpaJ jhh; tug;bgw;wjhf mk;khngl;il eph;thf mYtyh; xg;g[jy; mspj;jpUe;Jk; mjid tubtLf;fhky; cs;sJk; j';fspd; md;ghd ftdj;jpw;F bfhzUfpnwd;/ ,jid eph;thf Ma;t[ bra;J jhh; tubtLf;fhj mk;khngl;il eph;thf mYtyhplkpUe;J 4/285 bk/ld; jhUf;Fhpa fpuaj;jpid gpoj;jk; bra;a eltof;if vLf;FkhWk; md;g[ld;nfl;Lf; bfhs;fpnwd;/ "

¶19

A reading of the aforesaid passage would go to show that some tar was sent from Papanasam Town Panchayat to Melattur Town Panchayat. The same is not in dispute before this Court. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

dispute is with regard to the tar that was sent from Melattur Town Panchayat to Ammapettai Town Panchayat. While the petitioner claims that 4.285 MT Tar was sent by him to Ammapettai Town Panchayat and the same was also acknowledged by the Executive Officer of Ammapettai Town Panchayat, there is no basis for ordering recovery towards the cost of 4.285 MT Tar from the petitioner.

¶21

The proceedings of the Regional Deputy Director of Local Fund Audit, makes it clear that the Executive Officer of Ammapettai acknowledged the receipt of 4.285 MT from Melattur Town Panchayat. But he has failed to make necessary entries in the stock register maintained at Ammapettai Town Panchayat and therefore, he observed that recovery shall be made from Ammapettai Executive Officer. But there is no whisper about the said proceedings by the second respondent District Collector in the counter affidavit filed. The third respondent also has not dealt with the aforesaid proceedings of the Regional Deputy Director of Local Fund Audit

¶22

It is also relevant to note that an amount of Rs.47,135/was also recovered from the Executive Officer of Ammapettai as stated in the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent.

¶23

In such circumstances, having recovered the amount from the Executive Officer of Ammapettai, it is not fair to recover the amount from the petitioner also, who is the Executive Officer of Melattur and the same is bad and illegal. Hence, the said recovery is liable to be interfered with.

¶24

The petitioner was forced to deposit Rs.47,135/- for settlement of terminal benefits, as seen from the reply affidavit. The petitioner has also enclosed the receipt, dated 26.04.2002 for having deposited the said amount. Since the amount was illegally retained by the third respondent, the third respondent is also liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% for the aforesaid amount till repayment.

¶25

In view of the above, the writ petition stands allowed. The third respondent is directed to pay an amount of Rs.47,135/along with interest at the rate of 9% to the petitioner from the date of deposit i.e, 26.04.2002 till repayment, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶26

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶27

//True Copy//

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

1.The Assistant Director,
Regional Town Panchayat Office,
Panagal Building, Thanjavur.
2.The District Collector,
Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.
3.The Executive Officer,
Town Panchayat
Mellatur, Thanjavur.
1 cc to M/s. R.Meenakshi,Advocate, SR.No.57256
1 cc to Government Pleader,Sr.No57529
W.P.No.8513 of 2007
(O.A.No.6224 of 2002)
rv(Co)
pmk.9.12.2014

¶32

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

A.Palanisamy v. the Assistant Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A.Palanisamy v. the Assistant Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Rengasamy Vs the Special Secretary to

S.Chandraprakasam Vs the District Collector

S.Jayakumar Vs the Govt of Tamil Nadu

M. Selvam Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by

P. Sivakumar Vs the Director Generl of

P.Chinnasamy Vs the Conservator of Forests