Dismissed

S.Kumar v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC13 Jul 2023WP/18727/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions filed by district judiciary staff challenged internal audit proceedings leading to potential recovery of excess pay. The High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the office note with the audit report was not a final order and no recovery had yet been effected against most petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed both writ petitions; directed that petitioners affected by recovery orders may challenge them if due procedure was not followed.

S.Kumar Vs the Secretary to Government — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P. Nos.18727 and 20747 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 13.07.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN

¶6

and

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR

¶8

W.P. Nos.18727 and 20747 of 2023

¶9

W.M.P. Nos.17973, 17974, 20122 and 20123 of 2023

¶10

1 S. Kumar

¶11

2 T. Natarajan

¶12

3 D. Sivakumar Petitioners in W.P. No.18727 of 2023

¶13

1 S. Vinayagam

¶14

2 R. Raman

¶15

3 C. Ramesh

¶16

4 D. Sivakumar

¶17

5 R. Sivakumar

¶18

6 V. Thangadurai

¶19

7 M. Chandiran

¶20

8 J. Thenmozhi

¶21

9 M.K. Jayanthi

¶22

10 R. Premeela Devi

¶23

11 K. Ponmani

¶24

12 G. Sarala

¶25

13 P. Malathi

¶26

14 M. Selva Nayagi

¶27

15 S. Kaliyammal

¶28

16 Prema

¶29

17 A. Sheik Akbar

¶30

18 K. Vennila

¶31

19 S. Seetha

¶32

20 A. Vijaya

¶33

21 T. Anees Sulthana 22 D. Suganthamala

¶34

Petitioners

¶35

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1 The Secretary to Government

¶37

1/6

¶38

W.P. Nos.18727 and 20747 of 2023

¶39

Home (Pay Cell) Department Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009

¶40

2 The Registrar General High Court of Madras Chennai 600 104

¶41

3 The Principal District Judge Villupuram Respondents in both W.Ps.

¶42

Prayer in W.P. No.18727 of 2023:

¶43

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in (1) D.No.6846/2022 dated 04.07.2022 & (2) D.No.671 dated 25.01.2023 on the file of the respondents herein, quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to give the benefits of one increment to the 1^st , 2^nd and 3^rd petitioners on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.450, Home (Courts-V) Department dated 11.08.2011.

¶44

Prayer in W.P. No.20747 of 2023:

¶45

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in (1) D.No.5270 dated 11.05.2022 and (2) D.No.12375 dated 13.12.2022 on the file of the respondents and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to give the benefits of one increment to all the petitioners on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.450, Home (Courts-V) Department dated 11.08.2011.

¶46

For petitioners in Mr. S. Tamilselvan both WPs

¶47

For R1 in Mr. V. Yamuna Devi both WPs Special Government Pleader For RR 2 & 3 in Mr. V. Vijay Shankar W.P. No.18727/2023 Standing Counsel

¶48

For RR 2 & 3 in Mr. B. Vijay W.P. No.20747/2023 Standing Counsel

¶49

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

¶50

2/6

¶51

W.P. Nos.18727 and 20747 of 2023

¶52

COMMON ORDER

¶53

The grievance of the petitioners in both the writ petitions being common,

¶54

these writ petitions are considered and decided by this common order.

¶55

2 The facts that gave rise to the filing of these writ petitions are as

¶56

under:

¶57

2.1 The petitioners joined the district judiciary in various capacities such as Junior Assistant / Copyist / Typist / Assistant / Reader / Junior Bailiff / Steno Typist and were subsequently promoted as Bench Clerk-Grade II / Head Clerk / Central Nazir / Sherishtadar / Deputy Nazir / Translator / Record Keeper in the district judiciary. All of them were sanctioned promotional increment @ 3% as per G.O. (Ms.) No.450, Home (Courts V) Department dated 11.08.2011.

¶58

2.2 While so, they were served with proceedings of the third respondent

¶59

enclosing the objection of the Internal Audit Wing of the High Court in respect of recovery of excess pay and allowances made to them.

¶60

2.3 Aggrieved, they addressed representations to the authorities

¶61

concerned for stoppage of recovery of excess pay. Finding no positive response, they have filed the instant writ petitions challenging the aforesaid proceedings of

¶62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the third respondent and for a direction to the respondents to give them the benefit

¶63

3/6

¶64

W.P. Nos.18727 and 20747 of 2023

¶65

of the Government Order mentioned in paragraph 2.1, supra.

¶66

3 Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶67

4 Admittedly, out of the petitioners in these two writ petitions, only two

¶68

petitioners in W.P. No.20747 of 2023, viz ., J. Thenmozhi and A. Sheik Akbar have been issued with recovery order, based on the impugned proceedings of the third respondent and those two proceedings have not been put to challenge. The other petitioners in both the writ petitions have not been issued with recovery order. Whether the two petitioners mentioned supra have been afforded due opportunity before effecting recovery order or not, has not been mentioned or questioned in W.P. No.20747 of 2023.

¶69

5 As far as the impugned proceedings of the third respondent is concerned, it is only an Office Note enclosing the internal audit report. In case, any show cause notice for recovery is issued, after affording an opportunity of being heard, a decision can be arrived at by the authorities concerned and in case, any adverse decision is taken by the authorities, it is open to the petitioners to challenge the same in accordance with law.

¶70

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

¶71

4/6

¶72

W.P. Nos.18727 and 20747 of 2023

¶73

In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed. However, as far as

¶74

petitioners 8 and 17 in W.P. No.20747 of 2023, viz ., J.Thenmozhi and A. Sheik Akbar, are concerned, they are at liberty to challenge the recovery order, in case, they had not been afforded due opportunity in accordance with law. No costs. Connected W.M.Ps. are closed.

¶75

(S.V.N., J.) (K.R.S., J.) 13.07.2023

¶76

cad

¶77

¶78

1 The Secretary to Government Home (Pay Cell) Department Fort St. George Chennai 600 009

¶79

2 The Registrar General High Court of Madras Chennai 600 104

¶80

3 The Principal District Judge Villupuram

¶81

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

¶82

5/6

¶83

W.P. Nos.18727 and 20747 of 2023

¶84

S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.

and

K. RAJASEKAR, J.

cad

W.P. Nos.18727 and 20747 of 2023

¶89

13.07.2023

¶90

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

¶91

6/6

S.Kumar v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Kumar v. the Secretary to Government

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

A.Arumugam, Vs The District Collector

D.thiyagarajan @ Thiyagu Vs The District Collector

The Management of Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs D.Ponnurangan

The District Collector Vs a.Francis Daniel Raja

The Chief General Manager Vs the Central Government Industr

C.Varadharajan Vs The Registrar General