Allowed

V.Arul lango, v. Tamil Nadu Text Book and

Madras HC15 Dec 2022WP/22336/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition as the first respondent had already dropped the charge memo. It directed the respondent to release withheld monetary benefits, dearness allowance, and re-fix the pay forthwith within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to release withheld monetary benefits, dearness allowances, and re-fix the pay within four weeks.

V.Arul lango, Vs Tamil Nadu Text Book and — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.22336 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 15.12.2022

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

Writ Petition No.22336 of 2018 and WMP.No.26177 of 2018

¶7

V.Arul Ilango ... Petitioner

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

Tamil Nadu Text Book and Educational Services Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶10

M.Veerasamy … Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the concerned records from the 1^st respondent quash the order of the 1^st respondent dated 01.06.2018 bearing proceedings No.4753/A1/2015 insofar as ordering fresh enquiry in respect of charge memo bearing RC.No.4753/A1/2016 dated 09.03.2016 and consequently direct the 1^st respondent to drop the charge memo bearing proceedings No.4753/A1/2015 dated 01.06.2018 and further direct the 1^st respondent to release the increment, dearness allowance, refix the pay after taking into account of the due increments, salary for 23 days, additional work

¶12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶13

1/4

¶14

W.P.No.22336 of 2018

¶15

pay and Pongal price as claimed by the petitioner in his representation dated 12.07.2017 and 12.10.2017.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.Balan Haridas For R1 : Mr.T.Chezhiyan, Additional Government Pleader For R2 : No Appearance

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Today, when the matter was called, the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the proceedings of the first respondent/ Managing Director dated 16.03.2022, whereby the entire charge memo dated 01.06.2018 has been dropped.

¶19

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the pendency of these disciplinary proceedings and the charge memo dated 01.06.2018, the monetary benefits including his increment, dearness allowances and re-fixation of pay etc., have been withheld.

¶20

Now that the first respondent herein has chosen to drop the charges against the petitioner, there could be no impediment for the first respondent to release the monetary benefits, dearness allowances and re-

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

2/4

¶23

W.P.No.22336 of 2018

¶24

fixation of pay etc., of the petitioner, which have been withheld by the respondent.

¶25

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction

¶26

to the first respondent herein to release all the monetary benefits, dearness allowances and to re-fix the pay etc. forthwith, that may have been withheld by the respondent due to the pendency of the charge memo, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶27

15.12.2022

¶28

Index : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order

¶29

¶30

¶31

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Text Book and Educational Services Corporation, DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶32

M.S.RAMESH, J.

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

3/4

W.P.No.22336 of 2018

W.P.No.22336 of 2018

¶38

15.12.2022

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

4/4

V.Arul lango, v. Tamil Nadu Text Book and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Arul lango, v. Tamil Nadu Text Book and

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

B.Padma Vs State of Tamilnadu

Raadhu Raji Vs The Director General of Police

R.G.Elangovan Vs Government of TamilNadu

R.Venkatraj Vs State of Tamil Nadu

K.Balasubramaniam, Vs The Principal Secretary to

Tmt.M.Senthamil Selvi, Vs The Secretary to Government