Petitioner sought mandamus to direct respondents to disburse unpaid subsistence allowance. Court noted recovery proceedings under Revenue Recovery Act were already initiated. Held no mandatory direction needed; petitioner dismissed.
No mandatory direction given; direction to speed up recovery proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
CAV ON 26/10/2015 DATED:28 /01/2016 CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN
W.P.No.2385 of 2015
and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
G.Pandithurai ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Deputy Registrar of Co-op. Societies,
Ariyalur Circle, Ariyalur,
Ariyalur District.
2.The President,
R.2650, Keezhakudiyiruppu Primary
Agricultural Co-op. Credit Society,
Keezhakudiyiruppu Village & Post,
Udayarpalayam Taluk, Ariyalur District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Udayarpalayam Taluk @ Jayankondam,
Ariyalur District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to disburse the subsistence allowance to the tune of Rs.1,70,325/- to the petitioner, as per order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour / Competent Authority, Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, Trichy, dated 20.07.2012 in S.A.No.03 of 2012.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam For Respondents : Mr.E.M.S.Natarajan Government Advocate
O R D E R
The petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the second respondent Society in the year 1990 and he discharged his duties without any blemish whatsoever, but the second respondent herein passed the order on 07.02.2007 whereby suspending him from service without any valid reasons. The petitioner has further submitted that the second respondent without following the procedure and without paying the entire subsistence allowance, the second respondent passed the termination order against him on 29.11.2011, against which, he preferred Statutory Revision before the Joint Registrar of Co-op. Societies under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-op. Societies Act and the same was rejected by the Joint Registrar of Co-op. Societies on 30.10.2012. Against which, the petitioner approached this Court and filed writ petition challenging the said orders in W.P.No.12477 of 2013 and the same is pending before this Court.
07.02.2007, without assigning any valid reasons. After suspension, the petitioner is entitled to receive subsistence allowance till the enquiry is completed. The petitioner was terminated on 29.11.2011, without giving sufficient opportunity for getting explanation on the second notice. As such, the second respondent's termination order is not sustainable under law. The aggrieved petitioner has filed a petition before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, who is the competent authority to decide the issue under the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act. The said case has been decided on merits and the second respondent was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,70,325/- as subsistence allowance.
above writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
-s/dAssistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
r n s/vs
To
1.The Deputy Registrar of Co-op. Societies,
Ariyalur Circle, Ariyalur,
Ariyalur District.
2.The President
R 2650, Keezhakudiyiruppu Primary
Agricultural Co-operative credit society,
Keezhakudiyiruppu Village & Post
Udayarpalayam, Ariyalur District
3.The Tahsildar,
Udayarpalayam Taluk @ Jayankondam,
Ariyalur District.
+1 cc to Mr.C.Prakasam Advocate sr.5897
W.P.No.2385 of 2015 &
M.P.No.1 of 2015
msm(co)
aa12/02/2016
2 issues framed by the court
Whether mandatory directions under Article 226 are necessary when revenue recovery proceedings are already under process for subsistence allowance.
Whether the third respondent (Tahsildar) is directed to expedite the recovery proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
G. Pandithurai
The Deputy Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Ariyalur Circle
The President, Keezhakudiyiruppu Primary Agricultural Co-op. Credit Society
The Tahsildar, Udayarpalayam Taluk
C.S. Karnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
