Petitioner challenged non-retention and suspension order pending criminal appeal. Court found appeal dismissed and no further proceedings; directed authorities to revoke orders and settle benefits within 12 weeks.
Direct respondents to revoke suspension/non-retention orders and settle terminal benefits (pension+interest) within 12 weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.4.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.4552 of 2022
C.Gandhimathi ...Petitioner
Vs.
College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 06.
3 Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary, School Education Dept., Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
No.293 M.K.N. Road, Alandur, Chennai 600 016.
...Respondents
(R-3 and R-4 impleaded vide order, dt. 11.03.2022 in W.M.P.No.5763 of 2022)
Prayer : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to revoke the order of the 2nd respondent dated 30.05.2014 bearing R.C.No.67598/A2/S2/20091 placing the petitioner under suspension and the order of the second respondent dated 30.05.2014 bearing R.C.No.67598/ A2/S2/2009-2 not permitting the petitioner to retire and retaining the petitioner in service and permit the petitioner to retire from service with effect from 31.05.2014 being the date of superannuation and further direct the respondents to settle the terminal benefits of the petitioner including arrears of pension along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum and for costs.
For Petitioner : Mr.Balan Haridas For Respondents : Mr.V.Manoharan, A.G.P.
O R D E R
According to the petitioner, the petitioner while working as a Typist in the respondent department, the fourth respondent has preferred a false complaint against her husband who was working in Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd. alleging disproportionate wealth to the known source of the income. The petitioner was arrayed as A-2 as an abettor. A criminal case has been registered against the petitioner's husband and the petitioner and the same was tried by the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and the trial Court by judgment, dated 3.2.2009 in C.C.No.12 of 2002 acquitted both the petitioner and her husband from the charges. However, the prosecution has preferred Criminal Appeal No.162 of 2010 before this Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.5.2014. However, the second respondent issued order, dated 30.5.2014 stating that the petitioner was not permitted to retire on reaching the date of superannuation i.e. on 31.5.2014 on the ground that the criminal Appeal No.162 of 2010 is pending before this Court. According to the petitioner, subsequently, the aforesaid Criminal Appeal No.162 of 2010 was also dismissed by judgment dated 13.2.2010. The petitioner made representation to the respondents for revocation of suspension order and to settle the terminal benefits to the petitioner with effect from 31.5.2014 being the date of superannuation including the interest at the rate of 8% p.a. However, the respondent without any justification, terminal benefits, Pension and other monetary dues are not disbursed to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court.
the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
petitioner in C.C.No.12 of 2002 ended in acquittal by judgment of the trial Court, dated 3.2.2009 and the appeal preferred by the fourth respondent in Criminal Appeal No.162 of 2010 was also dismissed by this Court and it is informed to this Court that no further appeal has been preferred by the DVAC before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and no further disciplinary proceedings initiated by the respondent against the petitioner. Such view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled for terminal benefits as claimed in the representation, dated 5.8.2020 and reminder dated 1.2.2021.
s/dAssistant Registrar
W.P.No.4552 of 2022
SS(CO)
SP(28/04/2022)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to terminal benefits and to revoke the suspension and non-retention order after the criminal appeal中对她的指控被驳回。
Whether the respondent should direct the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representations and settle her terminal benefits.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
C. Gandhimathi
The Director of School Education
The Joint Director of School Education (Personnel)
Government of Tamil Nadu
The Director, Directorate of Vigilance And Anti-Corruption
D. Krishna Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
