Dismissed

Salem District Municipal v. the Attur Municipality

Madras HC9 Aug 2021WP/30065/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order directing deduction of withheld sums for accommodation privileges. The Court held that the total deduction was valid as it covered the specific audit-objection period, not a recurring monthly rate, but observed that future deductions must adhere strictly to the prescribed monthly ceiling.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari dismissed; orders date 15.07.2008 upheld subject to observation regarding future deductions.

Salem District Municipal Vs the Attur Municipality — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 09.08.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶5

W.P.No.30065 of 2008 and MP.No.1 of 2008

¶6

Salem District Municipal Workers Union (Reg.No.191/1975) Represented by its Secretary A.Natesan 82/69 Kambaperumal Koil Street, Attur, Salem District.

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

-Vs.-

¶9

The Attur Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner, Attur, Salem District.

¶10

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the order dated 15.07.2008 made in Na.Ka.No.16305/2008/H1-on the file of the respondent herein – quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sriram

¶12

For Respondent : No Appearance

¶13

Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in previous listings on 03.08.2021 and 04.08.2021, which read as follows:

¶14

'Proceedings dated 03.08.2021

¶15

There is no representation for both sides.

¶16

2. Registry to not to show the name of Mr.T.Murugamanikkam from the next listing as learned counsel has since been designated as a Senior Advocate by this Court. However, names of co-counsel, namely Mr.V.Rajesh and Mr.S.Balan (shown in the cause list today) shall be shown in the cause list from the next listing.

¶17

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

¶18

3. With the intention of giving opportunity to the writ petitioner, writ petitioner's counsel, respondent and respondent's counsel, list this matter tomorrow i.e., 04.08.2021.

¶19

Proceedings dated 04.08.2021

¶20

Mr.A.Sriram, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for writ petitioner is before this Virtual Court, but there is no representation for the respondent today also.

¶21

Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made yesterday (03.08.2021), which reads as follows:

¶22

'There is no representation for both sides.

¶23

Registry to not to show the name of Mr.T.Murugamanikkam from the next listing as learned counsel has since been designated as a Senior Advocate by this Court. However, names of co-counsel, namely Mr.V.Rajesh and Mr.S.Balan (shown in the cause list today) shall be shown in the cause list from the next listing.

¶24

With the intention of giving opportunity to the writ petitioner, writ petitioner's counsel, respondent and respondent's counsel, list this matter tomorrow i.e., 04.08.2021.'

¶25

Learned counsel expresses regret for not representing the matter yesterday. Learned counsel submits that counsel on record missed the listing of the matter yesterday though learned counsel initially submitted that name of the counsel on record was not shown in the cause list. Yesterday's cause list was shown to the learned counsel after which he stood corrected.

¶26

Be that as it may, even today learned counsel for writ petitioner is not ready. Learned counsel requests for a short accommodation.

¶27

Owing to request on behalf of counsel on record for writ petitioner and with the intention of giving opportunity to the sole respondent and respondent's counsel, list this matter on Monday i.e., 09.08.2021.'

¶28

Today, Mr.A.Sriram, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for writ petitioner is before this Court, but there is no representation for respondent. To be noted, case file placed before this Court shows that the sole respondent has been duly served on 14.01.2009. This Court is informed that the sole respondent [Attur Municipality represented by its Commissioner] has not chosen to enter

¶29

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

¶30

appearance through a counsel. It is also to be noted that the name of the sole respondent is duly shown in the cause list.

¶31

In the above setting and the above trajectory captioned writ petition has taken, this Court deems it appropriate to take up the captioned writ petition, hear learned counsel for writ petitioner and dispose of the same on merits on the available records.

¶32

The entire matter turns on a very narrow compass. It pertains to quarters allotted to Sanitary Workers in the respondent-Local body. This is governed by an executive order namely G.O.Ms.No.1079 dated 29.12.1981, which provides for deduction of Rs.10/-per month and Rs.15/- per month in Town Panchayats and Municipalities respectively as nominal sums for Sanitary Workers, who are provided quarters. In other words, Rs.10/- per month in Town Panchayats and Rs.15/- per month in Municipalities. In the instant case, it is not clear as to when the respondent-Local body became a Municipality and whether it was a Town Pachayat at an earlier point of time.

¶33

Be that as it may, there was an audit of accounts of respondent qua Financial year 2004-2005 by the Office of Auditor General and the audit report noticed that aforementioned sum has not been deducted for the period from 01.09.1998 to 31.03.2007. Pursuant to such audit objection, respondent made 'orders dated 15.07.2008 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.16305/H1' [hereinafter 'impugned order' for the sake of convenience] directing deduction of Rs.357/- for 36 months from 71 individuals.

¶34

The primary and lone submission of learned counsel for writ petitioner is that the impugned order is bad as it is a direction for deduction of Rs.357/- per month, whereas only a sum of Rs.10/- per month in cases of Town Panchayats at the highest Rs.15/- in cases of Municipalities can be deducted when quarters provided to Sanitary Workers owing to aforementioned G.O.Ms.No.1079 dated 29.12.1981. This argument is clearly misconceived as deduction of Rs.357/- per month for 71 workers is only for a period of 36 months and this is towards sums, which ought to have been deducted for 103 period from 01.09.1998 to 31.03.2007.

¶35

Therefore, the lone basis on which the challenge to the impugned order is predicated is flattened, it fails and the sequiter is, the captioned writ petition is liable to be dismissed. However, from the case file, it becomes clear that post deduction, as per operating G.O i.e., G.O.Ms.No.1079 dated 29.12.1981, the deduction shall be only Rs.15/- per month for Sanitary Workers, who are provided quarters. If there is any variance in this, it is open to the writ petitioner and/or any

¶36

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

¶37

other worker to agitate and/or assail the same in a manner known to law and this order will not come in the way if such a scenario unfurls. If such a scenario unfurls and it becomes necessary, the same will obviously be dealt with on its own merits and in accordance with law by the Court/authority/fora concerned, uninfluenced by this order.

¶38

Captioned writ petition is dismissed albeit with the above observation. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition being MP.No.1 of 2008 is also dismissed.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)

¶41

//True Copy//

¶42

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶43

kmi

¶44

¶45

The Commissioner, Attur Municipality, Attur, Salem District.

¶46

W.P.No.30065 of 2008 and MP.No.1 of 2008

¶47

AK(CO) CT(03/09/2021)

¶48

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

Salem District Municipal v. the Attur Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salem District Municipal v. the Attur Municipality

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

S.Maheshwari Vs the Commanding Officer

U.Ravindran Vs the Director General of Police

R. Velayutham Vs the Secretary to Government

N.Rajan Vs the Deputy Registrar of Co. Op Societies.

N.Ganapathy Vs Union of India

K. Nataraja Naidu Vs the Director of School