2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's husband/K.Moorthy is a life convict prisoner in L.C.P.No.5414 and he availed leave under the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 and came out on casual leave for 30 days during the period of emergency of family ceremonies. The petitioner's husband came out for leave with escort and therefore, they deducted a sum of Rs.31,137/- from the wages of the petitioner. He would further submit that the wife of the life convict / petitioner is very poor and she had no means of income and therefore, the petitioner approached the revenue authorities and applied for poverty certificate as contemplated under Rule 16 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982. The revenue authorities received the said application and transferred to the concerned Block Development Officer and the same was considered by the Block Development Officer and thereafter, he issued poverty certificate to the petitioner. The said certificate was directly communicated to the second respondent office by order in Na.Ka.No.1355/2017/Thi2, dated 17.06.2019 and thereafter, the petitioner's husband/life convict made representation to the second respondent, dated 25.06.2019 claiming refund of the deducted amount. Even then the second respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner by the impugned order dated 01.07.2019, for the reason that in accordance with Rule 16 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, poverty certificate should be obtained from revenue department and since there is no fault on the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner sought for challenging the impugned order.
