Partly allowed

The Director, v. a.Kamalam

Madras HC8 Jun 2021WA(MD)/477/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a writ appeal arguing the lower court erred in mandating full reinstatement without an inquiry. The court confirmed the termination order was set aside properly but directed the authorities to implement a recommendation permitting the petitioner to retire in a lower post after attaining the age of superannuation.

What did the court decide?

Directed authors to implement recommendation to revert petition to lower post, permit retirement on attaining age of superannuation, and pay retirement benefits.

The Director, Vs a.Kamalam — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.A.[MD]No.477 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.06.2021 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM AND

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI

¶4

W.A.[MD]No.477 of 2020 and C.M.P(MD) No.3432 of 2020

¶5

1.The Director,

¶6

Integrated Child Development Programme Department, Tharamani, Chennai-113.

¶7

2.The District Collector, Collectorate, Thanthonimalai,

¶8

Karur District.

¶9

3.The District Project Co-ordinator, Integrated Child Development Programme, Karur District, Karur. ... Appellants / Respondents Vs.

¶10

A.Kamalam

¶11

Daughter of Alagiri Raman, Anganwadi Worker, Vettaiyarpalayam, K.Paramathi, Karur District. ... Respondent/Writ Petitioner

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to set aside the judgment dated 22.01.2020 in W.P(MD) No.17408 of 2015 on the file of this Court.

¶13

Prayer in WP(MD). 17408/ 2015 :

¶14

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned order passed by the 2nd Respondent in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.3376/A1/2012 dated 10.04.2015 and quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant and monetary benefits.

¶15

For Appellants : Mr.R.Baskaran

¶16

Standing Counsel for Government For Respondent : Mr.M.Saravanakumar

¶17

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

¶18

1/4

¶19

W.A.[MD]No.477 of 2020

¶20

JUDGEMENT

¶21

[Judgement of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]

¶22

This appeal filed by the Director, Integrated Child Development of Programme Department, Tharamani, Chennai, is directed against the order dated 22.01.2020 in W.P(MD) No.17408 of 2015 filed by the respondent herein.

¶23

The said writ petition was filed by the respondent praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order passed by the second appellant dated 10.04.2015. By the said order, the second appellant terminated the services of the writ petitioner on the ground that she has produced the false educational qualification certificate, certifying as if she has passed 8^th standard. The learned Writ Court had allowed the writ petition primarily for the reason that no enquiry was conducted and secondly, on the ground that the writ petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2018. The correctness of the said order is being questioned in this appeal.

¶24

Admittedly, the respondent has not been permitted to retire, which is an order, that can be passed by an employer even at the verge of retirement. However, before terminating the respondent, a charge memo has to be issued, enquiry has to be conducted and only if the charges are proved and the enquiry report is accepted by the Disciplinary Authority, an order of termination can be passed. The order of termination simpliciter cannot be passed against the respondent, because she is a permanent worker, having joined the post as Helper in the year 1982 and promoted as Worker in the year 1994. Therefore, the permanent employee cannot be removed from service without conducting an enquiry, especially, when there is a charge of production of false educational certificate. Therefore, to that extent, the learned Writ Court was right in setting aside the order of termination dated 13.04.2015. But we are not agreeable with regard to the direction given for directing the respondent to be permitted to retire from service and to sanction all retirement benefits. The Writ Court ought to have remanded the matter to the second appellant, with a direction to issue a charge memo, conduct an enquiry and then, pass an order.

¶25

4.The learned Standing Counsel for Government appearing for the appellants had earlier produced a report of the first respondent dated 04.08.2020, wherein a recommendation has made to revert the writ petitioner to a lower post and permit her to retire in the said post on attaining the age of superannuation i.e., on 30.06.2016. The operative portion of the communication reads as follows:-

¶26

vdnt nkw;fhZk; Mizapd; mog;gilapy; jpUkjp.fkyk;

¶27

vd;gtUf;F mq;fd ;tho cjtpahsuhf gzpapwf;fk ; bra;J> mq;fd ;tho

¶28

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

¶29

2/4

¶30

W.A.[MD]No.477 of 2020

¶31

cjtpahshpd; Xa;t [ bgWk; tajhd 58 ,d; go 30.06.2016 md;W Xa;t [ bgw mDkjp tHq;f khtl;l Ml;rpah; K:yk ; eltof;if vLf;fyhk; bjspt[iu tHq;fg ;gLfpwJ.

¶32

nkYk;> nkw;fhZk; tptug;go Xa;t [ Miz mDkjpf;fg ;gl ;lhy; fPH;f ;fhZk; tptug;go Xa;t{jpa gyd;fs ; tHq;fyhk; vd bjhptpf;fg ;gLfpwJ.

¶33

1.mq;fd ;tho cjtpahsh; gjtpapy; gzp Xa;t [ bgWk; ehs; 30.06.2016 vd;gjhy; mg;nghija fhyj;jpy; eilKiwapy; ,Ue;j murhiz 24> rK:feyk; (k) rj;Jzt[j ;jpl;lj ;Jiw> ehs;. 20.02.2016 , d; go U:.25>000/- Xl;Lbkhj;j bjhif tHq;fg ;gl ntz;Lk ;.

¶34

2.fU:h ; khtl;l jpl;l mYtyhplk; Xa;t{jpak; tHq;Ftjw;fhd

¶35

mDkjp Miz bgw;W 01.07.2016 Kjy; 31.08.2017 tiu mg;nghija fhyj;jpy; eilKiwapy; ,Ue;j murhiz 23> rK:feyk; (k) rj;Jzt [j ;jpl ;lj ;Jiw> ehs;. 20.02.2016 ,d; go U:.1>500/-w;fhd epYitj; bjhif tHq;fg ;gl ntz;Lk ;. fU:h ; khtl;l Ml;rpj; jiyth; mth;fspd; bray;Kiw Miz vz;.3376/m1/2015 ehs; 08.09.2017d;go mq;fd ;tho gzpahsuhf 30.06.2018 tiu gzpg[hpe;J Cjpak; bgw;Ws ;shh ; vdnt> mf;fhyq;fSf;F Xa;t{jpak; tHq;f ,athJ. nkYk;> jw;nghJ eilKiwapYs;s murhizapd;go 01.07.2018 Kjy; ehsJ njjp tiu U:.2>000/-w;fhd epYitj; bjhif bgw;W tHq;fg ;gl ntz;Lk ;. Xa;t

¶36

{jpag;gl ;oay; gzkhf;fg ;gLtjw;F Kd;dh ; thH;t [Wjpr; rhd;W ( Life Certificate) bgwg;gl ntz;Lk ;. tUq;fhyq;fspy; muR foj (epiy) vz;.65> rK:feyk; (k) rj;Jzt [j ;jpl ;lj ;Jiw> ehs;.12.10.2015 ,d; go Mz;Lf ;bfhU Kiw bgwg;gl ntz;Lk ;.

¶37

5.It is not clear as to whether the above direction has been implemented. We are of the view that the above recommendation of the first respondent is reasonable, having taken into consideration that the respondent / writ petitioner has entered into the service in the year 1982. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is partly allowed and the order of the learned Single Bench quashing the order of termination dated 30.04.2015 is confirmed and the other directions given by the learned Single Bench are set aside and the appellants https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ are directed to implement the recommendation made in the

¶38

3/4

¶39

W.A.[MD]No.477 of 2020

¶40

communication dated 04.08.2020 by reverting the respondent to the lower post and permitting her to retire in the lower post on attaining the age of superannuation and pay all the retiremental benefits and other emoluments, accordingly.

¶41

6.The above directions be complied with within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that this judgment cannot be treated as a precedent and has been passed taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

// True Copy //

¶43

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶44

Note In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶45

¶46

1.The Director,

¶47

Integrated Child Development Programme Department, Tharamani, Chennai-113.

¶48

2.The District Collector, Collectorate, Thanthonimalai, Karur District.

¶49

3.The District Project Co-ordinator, Integrated Child Development Programme, Karur District, Karur.

¶50

+1 CC to M/s.M.SARVANAKUMAR, Advocate ( SR-19111[F] dated 09/06/2021 +1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-19121[F] dated 09/06/2021 )

¶51

W.A.[MD]No.477 of 2020and C.M.P(MD) No.3432 of 2020 08.06.2021

¶52

KB(17.06.2021) 4P 6C

¶53

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

¶54

4/4

The Director, v. a.Kamalam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Director, v. a.Kamalam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Swathikas Jewellers Vs the Secretary

Kesavamani. K Vs The State rep by

Suresh Kumar.G Vs the District Collector

The Director Vs a. Sakthivelu

The Chief Engineer/Personnel Vs M.Rajadurai

Narkis Parvin Vs The Regional Passport Officer