Allowed

S.Ravi, S/o.v.Subramanyam, v. The Commissioner

Madras HC10 Jun 2024WP/31000/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Temple employees challenged a suo motu revision by the HR&CE Commissioner quashing approval of their revised pay scale and ordering recovery of excess pay. The Court held the Joint Commissioner had power to approve appointment and scale of pay under Rule 14, allowed the writ petition and directed refund of recoveries.

What did the court decide?

Impugned suo motu revision order dated 07.09.2015 quashed; amounts recovered from petitioners ordered refunded within 8 weeks.

S.Ravi, S/o.v.Subramanyam, Vs The Commissioner — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.31000 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 10.06.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

¶6

W.P.No. 31000 of 2016 &

¶7

W.M.P.No. 26875 of 2016

¶8

S.Ravi

¶9

D.Sumathi 3. S.Krishnan

¶10

A.Sarada ...Petitioners Vs.

¶11

1.The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Administrative Dept., Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

¶12

2.The Joint Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Administrative Dept, Dr. Balasundaram Road, Coimbatore.

¶13

3.The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Subramaniaswamy Thirukoil, New Police Station Street, Dharapuram Nagar & Taluk, Tiruppur District – 638 656.

¶14

1/7

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No.31000 of 2016

¶17

4.The Fit Person / Board of Trustees, Arulmighu Subramaniaswamy Thirukoil, New Police Station Street, Dharapuram Nagar & Taluk, Tiruppur District – 638 656. ...Respondents

¶18

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 1^st respondent dated 07.09.2015 made in suo motu revision No.21/2015/D2 and quash the same.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mrs. G.Thilakavathi Senior Counsel for Mr. R.Gopinath For Respondents : Mr. S.Ravichandran 1 and 2 Additional Government Pleader (HR & CE) For Respondents : No Appearance. 3 and 4.

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed in

¶22

suo motu revision made by the 1^st respondent and to quash the same. The brief facts which has preeceded the filing of the above Writ

¶23

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

¶24

2/7

¶25

W.P.No.31000 of 2016

¶26

Petition are as follows.

¶27

The petitioners have been appointed in the 4^th respondent Temple by the proposal of its Board of Trustees. The 3^rd respondent who is the competent authority for approving the appointment in the approved schedule of post had accorded approval and the petitioner has also been receiving his pay in the scale that enures to the post. In the year 2010, there was a proposal to revise the pay structure and the proposal was submitted to the 2^nd respondent by resolution of the 4^th respondent and the 2^nd respondent had also approved the same, whereby the scale of pay had been revised.

¶28

Thereafter, the 1^st respondent had suo motu initiated revision under Section 21 of the HR & CE Act and revised the order of the 2^nd respondent approving the revised scale of pay. Not stopping with this the 1^st respondent had also ordered recovery of the amount paid in excess to the petitioners and the same is challenged in the proceedings.

¶29

3/7

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.No.31000 of 2016

¶32

The 1^st respondent had proceeded on the premise that the 2^nd respondent / Joint Commissioner did not have the authority to revise the pay structure and grant regular time scale of pay. However, a perusal of Rule 14 framed under Section 116 (2) (xxiii) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, clearly indicates that the Joint Commissioner has a power to recommend the appointment, to confirm the appointment and the scale of pay and the findings otherwise of the 1^st respondent is erroneous.

¶33

Further, the board of trustees of the temple has taken into consideration all the parameters and recommended the appointment of the petitioners and others into sanctioned post and for a regular time scale of pay. The 2^nd respondent has approved the above as per the powers granted to him under the Act.

¶34

In the Writ Petition arising out of similar issue, the said Writ

¶35

Petitions were allowed and the impugned orders were set aside.

¶36

4/7

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.No.31000 of 2016

¶39

Considering the above facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶40

It is needless to state that the amounts recovered from the

¶41

petitioners on the basis of the impugned order shall be refunded to them within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶42

10.06.2024

¶43

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No kan

¶44

5/7

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.No.31000 of 2016

¶47

¶48

1.The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Administrative Dept., Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

¶49

2.The Joint Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Administrative Dept, Dr. Balasundaram Road, Coimbatore.

¶50

3.The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Subramaniaswamy Thirukoil, New Police Station Street, Dharapuram Nagar & Taluk, Tiruppur District – 638 656.

¶51

4.The Fit Person / Board of Trustees, Arulmighu Subramaniaswamy Thirukoil, New Police Station Street, Dharapuram Nagar & Taluk, Tiruppur District – 638 656.

¶52

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

¶53

6/7

¶54

W.P.No.31000 of 2016

¶55

P.T. ASHA, J,

¶56

kan

¶57

W.P.No. 31000 of 2016

¶58

10.06.2024

¶59

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

¶60

7/7

S.Ravi, S/o.v.Subramanyam, v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Ravi, S/o.v.Subramanyam, v. The Commissioner

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

B,Raghupathy Vs Government of Tamil Nadu

R.Gopi Vs The Presiding Officer

Mrs.Kalavathy Vs The District Collector

Kuldeep Yadav Vs The Union of India

Kuldeep Yadav Vs The Union of India

D.Jayaseeli Violet Vs The District Elementary