Partly allowed

Karthikeyan.M v. Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation

Madras HC18 Nov 2024WP(MD)/18230/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that a suspended employee is entitled to subsistence allowance during suspension regardless of whether the enquiry is completed. Since the employee died pending proceedings, the charges abated, but his legal heirs were directed to receive the subsistence allowance due for the suspension period.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondent to pay subsistence allowance as per Clause 6(d) of the Code to the legal heirs within eight weeks.

Karthikeyan.M Vs Tamil Nadu State Marketing… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

WP(MD)Nos.18230 of 2021 and 1185 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 18.11.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

WP(MD)Nos.18230 of 2021 and 1185 of 2022 and WMP(MD)Nos.15065 to 15068 of 2021

¶7

1.M.Karthikeyan (died) 2.K.Gayathri 3.K.Shobana

¶8

4.K.Charubala 5.K.Harini

¶9

6.Sivagangai Ammal

¶10

... Petitioners in both WPs

¶11

[Petitioners 2 to 6 are substituted as petitioners vide orders dated 18.11.2024 vide WMP(MD)Nos.23299 & 23298 of 2024 respectively]

¶12

¶13

Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Represented by its District Manager, Tiruchirappalli – 620 015.

¶14

...Respondent in both WPs

¶15

PRAYER in WP(MD)No.18230 of 2021: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the respondent bearing Se.Mu.Ka.No.CEEVEE-1/388/2021, dated 22.07.2021 and quash the

¶16

1/6

¶17

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

¶18

WP(MD)Nos.18230 of 2021 and 1185 of 2022

¶19

same only insofar as it denies salary to the petitioner from 01.09.2020 to 22.07.2021 and consequently direct the respondent to pay salary to the petitioner from 01.09.2020 to 22.07.2021 within a time frame.

¶20

PRAYER in WP(MD)No.1965 of 2022: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned show cause notice issued by the respondent bearing Na.Ka.No.CEEVEE-2/388/2021, dated 14.12.2021 and quash the same within a time frame.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Ramesh For Respondent : Mr.S.Sivaneswar Nos.1 and 2 Standing Counsel

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner Karthikeyan was a Supervisor in TASMAC. He was placed under suspension on 11.5.2020 contemplating an enquiry. He was also issued with a charge memo on 14.12.2021, which is challenged in WP(MD)No.1185 of 2022. The petitioner has made a request to the respondents seeking subsistence allowance for the suspended period from 11.05.2020 till 22.07.2021, it was rejected by order dated 22.07.2021 and the same is challenged in WP(MD)No.18230 of 2021

¶24

2/6

¶25

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

¶26

WP(MD)Nos.18230 of 2021 and 1185 of 2022

¶27

2.Since both writ petitions are interconnected, they are taken up

¶28

together for hearing and disposed of by this common order.

¶29

3.It is reported that the petitioner Karthikeyan has passed away on

¶30

02.12.2022 pending these writ petitions. Therefore, the legal heirs have been substituted as petitioners 2 to 6 in these writ petitions.

¶31

4.The writ petition in WP(MD)No.1185 of 2022 is filed challenging the charge memo. Though the charge memo was issued on 14.12.2021, it appears that the enquiry had not been completed. Since the petitioner died pending the enquiry, this writ petition in WP(MD)No.1185 of 2022 is disposed of that the charges are abated.

¶32

5.Insofar as the writ petition in WP(MD)No.18230 of 2021 is concerned the petitioner was suspended from service on 11.05.2020. Challenging the same he has filed a writ petition in WP(MD)No.6823 of 2020 and this Court by order dated 09.07.2020 directed the respondent to initiate and to complete departmental proceedings within a period of six weeks and if not, the order of suspension shall stand revoked.

¶33

3/6

¶34

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

¶35

WP(MD)Nos.18230 of 2021 and 1185 of 2022

¶36

Subsequently he was issued with the charge memo only on 14.12.2021. Though the charge memo was issued on 14.12.2021, the respondent did not complete the enquiry as directed by this Court. The petitioner, who was suspended on 11.05.2020 was subsequently reinstated into service effect from 23.07.2021. Whoever is suspended from service is entitled for the payment of subsistence allowance during the suspension period. The Code of Prevention and Detection of Fraudulent Acts in Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited – 2014 deals with the departmental proceedings in the respondent Corporation.

¶37

6.Clause 6(d) of the Code of Prevention and Detection of fraudulent Acts in Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, 2014, is relevant and the same is extracted as under:

¶38

“6.Investigation Procedure:

¶39

(d) If the charges are grave and if it is found that the continuance of the employee in service is injurious to the interest of fair investigation / disciplinary proceedings, he may be suspended pending enquiry. In such event, he shall be paid subsistence allowance as per rules.”

¶40

4/6

¶41

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

¶42

WP(MD)Nos.18230 of 2021 and 1185 of 2022

¶43

Therefore, the deceased employee is entitled for subsistence allowance for the suspension period.

¶44

7.In view of the above, the writ petition in WP(MD)No.18320 of

¶45

2021 is partly allowed by setting aside the impugned order with a direction to the respondent to pay the subsistence allowance as per clause 6(d) of the Code to legal heirs / petitioners 2 to 6 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶46

18.11.2024

¶47

Internet : Yes / No DSK

¶48

¶49

The District Manager, The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation, Tiruchirappalli – 620 015

¶50

5/6

¶51

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

¶52

WP(MD)Nos.18230 of 2021 and 1185 of 2022

¶53

B.PUGALENDHI.J.,

¶54

DSK

¶55

WP(MD)Nos.18230 of 2021 and 1185 of 2022

¶56

18.11.2024

¶57

6/6

¶58

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

Karthikeyan.M v. Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karthikeyan.M v. Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation

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

The Correspondent Vs Pugalenthi

A.Kanagaraj Vs Shakeel AKther Ips,(Retired)

Prakash.M Vs The Director / Commissioner of technical education

Mariselvam.K Vs The Director of Backward Class Welfare

A.R.Senthil Kumar, Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by

S. Balamurugan Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep.by