This petition challenged the recovery of Rs.75,060 deducted from the petitioner's gratuity for a non-implemented punishment period. The court directed the respondent to return the amount.
Direct the respondent to return Rs. 75,060 along with 12% interest from the date of recovery to the petitioner within six 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.
W.P.No.1634 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.10.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.P. No.1634 of 2020
N.Prasad ... Petitioner /vs/
Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram-III) Ltd., Thiruvannamalai Region, rep by its General Manager, Bye Pass Road, Venkikkal, Thiruvannamalai-606 604. ... Respondent
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue
a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to return the amount of Rs.75,060/with 12% interest from the date of recovery, recovered from gratuity paid to the petitioner.
For Petitioner ... Mr. P.Ganesha Murthi For Respondents ... Mr. Aswin Standing Counsel for Transport Corporation
Page 1 of 6
W.P.No.1634 of 2020
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of the writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to return the amount of Rs.75,060/- with 12% interest from the date of recovery, recovered from gratuity paid to the petitioner.
Page 2 of 6
W.P.No.1634 of 2020
nearly Rs.10,000/- in the year 2017 and when he retired from service he lost Rs.16,000/- from his salary; though the petitioner had repeatedly requested the respondent to revise his salary, there is no response from them; when the respondents settled the terminal benefits, they deducted a sum of Rs.75,060/from his gratuity amount for non-implementation of punishment period; the contention of the petitioner is that after retirement, the respondent cannot recover the amount pertaining to non-implemented punishment period; hence the petitioner has filed this petition.
Page 3 of 6
W.P.No.1634 of 2020
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Others etc. Vs. Rafiq Masih
(White Washer) etc., in CA No.11527 of 2014 and claimed that the payment made to the retired employees should not be recovered.
04.10.2023
bkn
Page 4 of 6
W.P.No.1634 of 2020
To:
The Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram-III) Ltd., Thiruvannamalai Region, rep by its General Manager, Bye Pass Road, Venkikkal, Thiruvannamalai-606 604
Page 5 of 6
W.P.No.1634 of 2020
R.N.MANJULA ,J.
bkn
W.P.No.1634 of 2020
04.10.2023
Page 6 of 6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the amount deducted from the petitioner's gratuity for unpaid punishment period can be recovered after his retirement.
Whether the recovery should be allowed in light of the Supreme Court judgment in State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Punjab & Others etc. Vs. Rafiq MasihRelied on¶27
State of Punjab & Others etc. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc., in CA No.11527 of 2014
1 provisions across 1 enactments
N. Prasad
Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram-III) Ltd., Thiruvannamalai Region, rep by its General Manager
R.N. Manjula
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
