Remanded

S.K.Venkatachalam v. The Chief Engineer

Madras HC22 Nov 2019WP/16085/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court set aside impugned departmental orders regarding the petitioner's pay fixation and recovery orders, solely on the ground that no show cause notice was issued beforehand, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders were set aside; matter remitted for fresh consideration after hearing; interim stay of recovery continued.

S.K.Venkatachalam Vs The Chief Engineer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.11.2019 CORAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶3

W.P.No.16085 of 2019 And W.M.P.No.15854 of 2019

¶4

S.K.Venkatachalam

¶5

Vs.

¶6

1.The Chief Engineer (Agricultural Engineering) 487, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.

¶7

2.The Assistant Executive Engineer, (Agricultural Engineering), Pollachi, Coimbatore District. ... Respondents

¶8

Prayer:

¶9

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned orders of the second respondent in Proceedings No.E/1303/2018 (1) dated 30.04.2019 and Proceedings No.E/1303/ 2018 (2) dated 30.04.2019 and quash the said orders and direct the respondents to restore the pay fixation which existed before the issue of the impugned orders and grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Rajendran For Respondents : Mr.A.N.Thambidurai Special Government Pleader

¶11

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned orders of the second respondent in Proceedings No.E/1303/2018 (1) dated 30.04.2019 and Proceedings No.E/1303/ 2018 (2) dated 30.04.2019 and to quash the said orders and to direct the respondents to restore the pay fixation which existed before the issue of the impugned orders and to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner.

¶12

2.Heard the arguments advanced on either side.

¶13

3.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Soil Conservation Officer on

¶14

01.09.1986 and was promoted as Junior Engineer (Agricultural Engineering) on 13.12.2007 and since he was in possession of Degree in Engineering qualification, he was re-designated as Assistant Engineer (Agricultural Engineering), with effect from 13.12.2007 and two incentive increments were granted to the petitioner with effect from 25.06.2012. Whileso, the second respondent issued the impugned proceedings; one for re-fixing the petitioner's pay with effect from 25.06.2012 and another directing recovery of a sum of Rs.2,64,675/- from the petitioner's pay. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶15

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondents have power to cancel the increments granted earlier, if the increments were granted by non application of mind or by quoting wrong Government Orders. However, the increments were granted to the petitioner in the year 2012 and without any notice, it was suddenly cancelled and recovery order was passed in the year 2019 which is clear violation of principles of natural justice.

¶16

5.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would fairly concede that no opportunity was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned orders.

¶17

6.This Court perused the impugned orders. Perusal of the impugned orders reveal that no show cause notice calling for explanation from the petitioner was issued before issuance of the impugned orders. Hence, the impugned orders are set aside only on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The matter is remitted back to the respondents for fresh consideration. Till the respondents pass fresh orders, the order of interim stay of recovery alone granted by this Court shall continue.

¶18

7.The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.

¶19

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CJ Conf)

¶20

// True Copy//

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

pri

¶23

¶24

1.The Chief Engineer (Agricultural Engineering) 487, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035. 2.The Assistant Executive Engineer, (Agricultural Engineering), Pollachi, Coimbatore District. +1CC to Special Government Pleader 98008. W.P.No.16085 of 2019 And W.M.P.No.15854 of 2019 SR(CO) CSR: 17/12/2019

S.K.Venkatachalam v. The Chief Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.K.Venkatachalam v. The Chief Engineer

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

M.Pushparaj Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

M/S.Millennium Software Vs the Tamil Nadu Electricity

S.Parthiban Vs the Commissioner

G. Margret Pricilla Vs State of Tamil Nadu

S.Rajendran Vs S.Palanisamy IAS

K.M.v.Manivannan Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu