Allowed

N.T. Vijayalakshmi v. The Director of Elementary

Madras HC7 Jun 2018WP/33409/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a recovery order regarding a 2011 incentive increment because it was passed without providing a show cause notice or hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The Court directed the respondents to issue a notice within four weeks and pass a final order within twelve weeks thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Impugned recovery order dated 07.11.2017 quashed; respondents directed to issue show cause notice within four weeks and pass final order within twelve weeks thereafter.

N.T. Vijayalakshmi Vs The Director of Elementary — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 07.06.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.No.33409 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.36895 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.7857 of 2018

¶6

N.T.Vijayalakshmi ...Petitioner
Vs
1.The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
2.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Tiruvallore District,
Tiruvallore.
3.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
R.K.Pet Panchayat Union,
R.K.Pet,
Tiruvallore District. ... Respondents

¶7

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ or order or direction, particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the 3^rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.485/A1/2017, dated 07.11.2017 and quash the same.

¶8

For Petitioner :M/s.A.S.Kaizer

¶9

For Respondents:Mr.K.Karthikeyan, GA

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

The order of recovery issued by the 3^rd respondent in proceedings dated 07.11.2017 is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶12

2.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that the incentive increment granted in the year 2011 is sought to be recovered through the impugned order of recovery without any notice and opportunity given to the writ

¶13

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

¶14

petitioner.

¶15

3.The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents is unable to dispute the fact that a show cause notice was issued to the writ petitioner. Thus, the order affecting the rights of the writ petitioner has been issued without providing reasonable opportunity to the writ petitioner and accordingly in violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶16

4.Thus, the present writ petition is a fit case for remittance. Accordingly, the impugned recovery order passed by the 3^rd respondent in proceedings in Na.Ka.No.485/A1/2017 dated 07.11.2017 is quashed. The respondents are directed to issue show cause notice, setting out all the particulars to the writ petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, on receipt of the explanation from the writ petitioner, the final order shall be passed within a period of twelve weeks thereafter.

¶17

5.Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. However,
there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS-V)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
kak
To
1.The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
2.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Tiruvallore District,
Tiruvallore.
3.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
R.K.Pet Panchayat Union,
R.K.Pet,
Tiruvallore District.

¶18

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

¶19

+1 CC to Mr. Kaizer, Advocate sr 36031.

¶20

+1 CC to The Govt. Pleader sr 35876.

¶21

W.P.No.33409 of 2017

¶22

SP(13/06/2018)

¶23

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

N.T. Vijayalakshmi v. The Director of Elementary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.T. Vijayalakshmi v. The Director of Elementary

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

The Accommodation Controller & Vs G.Vanaja

K.Kaleeswarn Vs The Recovery Officer

P.R.Rengarajan, Vs The District Collector

Senthilkumar Vs The Govt. of Tamilnadu

Arunagiri Vs The Govt. of Tamilnadu

Johnsis Fransis Vs The Govt. of Tamilnadu