Dismissed

K.Jeyalakshmi v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC5 Jan 2023WP/30528/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged modified punishment for unauthorized absence and regulation of absence period as leave without pay, seeking to treat such period as duty time for benefits and promotion. The single judge dismissed the writ petition, holding that regulating absence without pay was consistent with denial of back wages.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; writ petition dismissed and connected miscellaneous petition closed.

K.Jeyalakshmi Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.30528 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 05.01.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

W.P.No.30528 of 2018 and

¶7

W.M.P.No.35607 of 2018

K.Jeyalakshmi

...Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt., Home (Police) Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶12

2.The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.

¶13

3.Inspector General of Police, Armed Police, Chennai - 600 010.

¶14

4.Deputy Inspector General of Police, Armed Police, Chennai - 600 010.

¶15

5.The Commandant, Tamil Nadu Special Police, 7^th Battalian, Pochampalli, Krishnagiri District.

¶16

...Respondents

¶17

1/7

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.No.30528 of 2018

¶20

PRAYER:

¶21

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the 5^th respondent in Na.Ka.No.E1/PR28/2010, dated 28.09.2010, as confirmed in the orders passed by 2^nd respondent in Rc.No.90860/Ap3(1)/2015, dated 13.10.2015 and confirmed with modification of punishment by the order of 1^st respondent in G.O.(D) No.332, Home (Pol 9) Department, dated 16.03.2017 and the consequential order issued by 5^th respondent in B.O.490/2017 C.No.E1/PR.28/2010, dated 02.11.2017 and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to allow the petitioner with service benefits, seniority and consequential promotion by treating the period out of employment as duty period with consequential and other attendant benefits including payment of arrears of salary.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan For Respondents : Mr.K.H.Ravikumar, Government Advocate

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Heard Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.H.Ravikumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶25

2/7

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.30528 of 2018

¶28

On charges of unauthorized absence, the petitioner herein was originally imposed with a punishment of removal from service on 28.09.2010 by the 5^th respondent herein. Thereafter, his mercy petition before the 2^nd respondent was also dismissed on 13.10.2015. Subsequently, the 1^st respondent herein had passed an order on 16.03.2017 in the appeal preferred by the petitioner and modified the original punishment into one of stoppage of increment for a period of 3 years with cumulative effect, but without back wages. Consequently, his period of absence came to be regulated by the 5^th respondent on 02.11.2017, wherein his period of non-employment was treated as leave without pay.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the modified punishment of stoppage of increment without back wages and the subsequent regulation of absence period, would amount to double punishment.

¶30

I am not in agreement with such a submission. When the modified punishment itself stated that the original order of removal from service be

¶31

3/7

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.No.30528 of 2018

¶34

modified into stoppage of increment for 3 years with cumulative effect and without back wages, his period of non-employment requires to be treated as leave without pay. However, such period of absence will also be deemed to be as duty period for all other purposes. Thus, when the back wages were denied to the petitioner, while modifying the punishment, regulating the period of unauthorized absence without pay, cannot be found fault with.

¶35

Since the respondents have stated in their counter affidavit that the petitioner's unauthorized absence has been regulated by following Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules, the petitioner cannot claim that his service during the unauthorized period was not regulated.

¶36

Thus, there are no merits in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the

¶37

writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶38

05.01.2023

¶39

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

¶40

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

4/7

W.P.No.30528 of 2018

5/7

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

¶45

W.P.No.30528 of 2018

¶46

¶47

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home (Police) Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶48

2.The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.

¶49

3.Inspector General of Police, Armed Police, Chennai - 600 010.

¶50

4.Deputy Inspector General of Police, Armed Police, Chennai - 600 010.

¶51

5.The Commandant, Tamil Nadu Special Police, 7^th Battalian, Pochampalli, Krishnagiri District.

¶52

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

6/7

W.P.No.30528 of 2018

M.S.RAMESH,J.

hvk

W.P.No.30528 of 2018

¶58

05.01.2023

¶59

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

¶60

7/7

K.Jeyalakshmi v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Jeyalakshmi v. The State of Tamil Nadu

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

L.Kesavan Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

M.Saraswathy Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

S.Perumal Vs The Chairman and Managing

Miss.S.Lalithambal, Vs The Secretary to Government

G.Elangovan Vs The Principal Secretary to

A.Rangaraj Vs The Director of Local Fund Audit