Dismissed

The State of Tamilnadu, v. R.Pandimeenal

Madras HC13 Jun 2016WA(MD)/26/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals filed by the State seeking recovery of amounts deducted from government servant salaries. The Division Bench dismissed the appeals, holding that recoveries are not to be ordered when the claim is not fraudulent and the employee received the money in anticipation of future refund, relying on settled legal principles and a previous Division Bench judgment.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the writ appeals and held that no recovery should be made from the salary of the respondents.

The State of Tamilnadu, Vs R.Pandimeenal — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.06.2016 CORAM :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

¶4

Writ Appeal (MD) Nos.26, 889 and 892 of 2016 & C.M.P(MD)Nos.158, 5359 and 5366 of 2016

¶5

Writ Appeal (MD) No.26 of 2016 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Education Department, Chennai – 9.

¶6

2.The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai – 6. 3.The District Elementary Education Officer, Sivagangai District.

¶7

4.The Additional Assistant Elementary Education Officer, Thirupathur, Sivagangai District. ... Appellants/Respondents 1 to 4 -Vs-.

¶8

1.Tmt.R.Pandimeenal, Secondary Assistant, S.P.D. Kalasalai Middle School, Kandavarayanpatti, Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District. ...1^st Respondent/Writ Petitioner 2.The Secretary, S.P.D. Kalasalai Middle School, Kandavarayanpatti, Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai ...2^nd Respondent/5^th Respondent Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside the order dated 18.04.2013 in W.P.(MD) No.9530 of 2010.

¶9

Prayer in WP(MD). 9530/ 2010 :

¶10

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS, calling for the entire documents connected with the impugned order passed by the 4th Respondent in Na.Ka.No.41/A2/2004 dated 08-01-2004 and quash the same in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ light of the judgment reported in 2004 (2) L.W. 591 in the case of The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Education Department and others -Vs- Pallivasal Primary School, Mudukulathur

¶11

¶12

and direct the 3rd and 4th Respondents to refund the amount to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.55,811/- which was already recovered from the salary of the petitioner.

¶13

For Appellant : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan Special Government Pleader For Respondent 1 : Mr.K.Mariyappan *** Writ Appeal (MD) No.889 of 2016 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Education Department, Chennai – 9. 2.The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai – 6. 3.The District Elementary Education Officer, Sivagangai District. 4.The Additional Assistant Elementary Education Officer, Thirupathur, Sivagangai District. ... Appellants/Respondents 1 to 4 -Vs1.Tmt.A.R.Meenal, Secondary Assistant, S.P.D. Kalasalai Middle School, Kandavarayanpatti, Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District. ...1^st Respondent/Writ Petitioner 2.The Secretary, S.P.D. Kalasalai Middle School, Kandavarayanpatti, Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai ...2^nd Respondent/5^th Respondent Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside the order dated 18.04.2013 in W.P.(MD) No.9531 of 2010. Prayer in WP(MD). 9531/ 2010 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS, calling for the entire documents connected with the impugned order passed by the 4th Respondent in Na.Ka.No.41/A2/2004 dated 08-01-2004 and quash the same in the light of the judgment reported in 2004 (2) L.W. 591 in the case of The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Education https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Department and others -Vs- Pallivasal Primary School, Mudukulathur and direct the 3rd and 4th Respondents to refund the amount to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.55,811/- which was already recovered

¶14

¶15

from the salary of the petitioner.

¶16

For Appellant : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan Special Government Pleader For Respondent 1 : Mr.S.N.Ravichandran Writ Appeal (MD) No.892 of 2016 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Education Department, Chennai – 9. 2.The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai – 6. 3.The District Elementary Education Officer, Sivagangai District. 4.The Additional Assistant Elementary Education Officer, Thirupathur, Sivagangai District. ... Appellants/Respondents 1 to 4 -Vs1.Tmt.I.Mahalakshmi, Secondary Assistant, S.P.D. Kalasalai Middle School, Kandavarayanpatti, Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District. ...1^st Respondent/Writ Petitioner 2.The Secretary, S.P.D. Kalasalai Middle School, Kandavarayanpatti, Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai ...2^nd Respondent/5^th Respondent Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside the order dated 18.04.2013 in W.P.(MD) No.9529 of 2010. Prayer in WP(MD). 9529/ 2010 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS, calling for the entire documents connected with the impugned order passed by the 4th Respondent in Na.Ka.No.41/A2/2004 dated 08-01-2004 and quash the same in the light of the judgment reported in 2004 (2) L.W. 591 in the case of The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Education https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Department and others -Vs- Pallivasal Primary School, Mudukulathur and direct the 3rd and 4th Respondents to refund the amount to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.53,200/- which was already recovered

¶17

¶18

from the salary of the petitioner.

¶19

For Appellant : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan Special Government Pleader For Respondent 1 : Mr.S.N.Ravichandaran

¶20

¶21

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶22

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO,J )

¶23

These appeals are preferred aggrieved by that part of the order of the learned Single Judge whereby and whereunder the proposed recovery of the amounts already paid in favour of the writ petitioners has been quashed. It is a settled principle of law that so long as the claim for payment is not a fraudulent one and it is not the result of any misrepresentation on the part of the employee concerned, such recoveries are not to be ordered normally inasmuch as the Government servant would not have kept away the money which he has received in anticipation that the same may have to be refunded to the Government later on. Further, we are also informed that when a similar lis has fallen for consideration, another Division Bench by its judgment dated 02.04.2004 rendered in W.A.(MD) Nos.249 of 2004 and batch, has dismissed the appeal. In that view of the matter, for the same set of reasons which are set out by the Division Bench in its judgment dated 02.04.2004 rendered in W.A.(MD) Nos.249 of 2004 and batch, we also dismiss these Writ Appeals holding that no recovery should be made from the salary of the respondents/writ petitioners. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar (CS-II)

¶26

/True copy/

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

1.The Secretary to Government,

¶30

Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.

¶31

2.The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai – 6.

¶32

3.The District Elementary Education Officer, Sivagangai District.

¶33

4.The Additional Assistant Elementary Education Officer, Thirupathur, Sivagangai District.

¶34

+1 CC to Mr.SINGARAVADIVEL, Advocate, SR No.30072

¶35

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

¶36

Writ Appeal (MD) Nos.26, 889 and 892 of 2016 13.06.2016

¶37

srm SH/NGM-MP:01.07.2016:4P/6C

The State of Tamilnadu, v. R.Pandimeenal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Tamilnadu, v. R.Pandimeenal

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

S.Arun Kumar Vs the Secretary

Easwari, Vs the Principal Secretary

The Correspondent, Vs N.S.Mohanram

The Assistant Provident Vs S.Sermadurai

Mr.Rex Henry, Vs the Debts Recovery Tribunal

The Joint Director of Vs E.Sankaranarayanan