Dismissed

The Deputy Inspector General v. S.D.Albert Dayakaran

Madras HC22 Feb 2017WA/2231/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ appeal against an order setting aside a reduction in pay, the Supreme Court found the case unnecessary for further adjudication as the respondent had retired and terminal benefits were disbursed based on the post-pollution wages before the penalty was implemented. The appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; costs refused; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.

The Deputy Inspector General Vs S.D.Albert Dayakaran — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.02.2017 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR and

¶2

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ W.A.No.2231 of 2012 M.P.No.1 of 2012

¶3

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chengalpattu Range, Chennai-16. ... Appellant /Respondent vs. S.D.Albert Dayakaran, Inspector of Police, Control Room, Thiruvallur District. ... Respondent /Petitioner

¶4

Writ appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent filed against the order of this Court made in W.P.No.40460 of 2006, dated 27.08.2010.

¶5

For Appellant : Mr.K.V.Dhanapalan, Spl. Govt. Pleader For Respondent : Mr.M.Ravi JUDGMENT (Judgement of this Court was delivered by S.MANIKUMAR, J.)

¶6

Writ appeal is directed against the order made in W.P.No.40460 of 2006, dated 27.08.2010. Prayer in WP.No.40460 of 2006

¶7

Writ petition come to be numbered by transfer of O.A.No.2184 of 2000 on the file of the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal Praying to quash the punishment of reduction in time scale ofpay by two stages for two years with cumulative effect passed by the respondent herein in his Na.Ka.No.A3/PR 59/99 P.R.No.147 of 1998 dt.31.01.2000 with all consequential monetary and service benefits.

¶8

On 08.12.2016, we passed the following orders, "Punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for two years with cumulative effect, has been inflicted on the respondent on 31.01.2000. Writ Court, vide order, dated 27.08.2010 made in W.P.No.40460 of 2006, set aside the penalty. Thereafter, the respondent has retired on voluntary retirement.

¶9

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

¶10

Both the learned counsel appearing for the parties are not in a position to state, as to whether, penalty, dated 31.01.2000, has been implemented or not. Record of proceedings shows that there is no stay of the operation of the order passed by the writ Court, in this writ appeal. Both the learned counsel appearing for the parties are also not in a position to state, as to whether, the order of the writ Court, dated 27.08.2010, has been given effect to.

¶11

Learned counsel appearing for both the parties, seek time to ascertain the current position, on the above. Post on 14.12.2016."

¶12

When this appeal came up for further hearing, on instructions from the appellant, Mr.K.V.Dhanapalan, learned Special Government Pleader submitted that punishment imposed was not given effect to. He further submitted that on attaining the age of superannuation, the respondent retired and terminal benefits, determined on the basis of the last drawn wages, in the post of Inspector of Police, have been disbursed. Pension is also being paid. His submission is placed on record.

¶13

In view of the above, at this length of time, we are of the view that no further adjudication of this appeal is required. Hence, writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar skm To The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chengalpattu Rode, Chennai. +1cc to Mr.Ravi , Advocate, S.R.No.11604 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.11731 SKV(CO) RS(08/03/2017)

¶14

W.A.No.2231 of 2012

¶15

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

The Deputy Inspector General v. S.D.Albert Dayakaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Deputy Inspector General v. S.D.Albert Dayakaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Swarnalekha Agencies Pvt. Vs City Union Bank Ltd.

Reliance General Insurance Vs Gopalakrishnan

The Chairman Vs C.Kalidasan

S.Kuppusamy Vs the Director of Town

P.Gandhi Vs The Authorised Officer

V. Vanaja Vs the Inspector General of