Dismissed

Paramasivam v. The Principal Secretary

Madras HC17 Mar 2025WP/25795/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging his dismissal as Record Clerk for unauthorized absence and proved charges. While the petition was dismissed, the Court directed respondents to ensure payment of any payable gratuity based on prior communications.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed; Direction issued to respondents to ensure payment of gratuity, if payable, to the petitioner.

Paramasivam Vs The Principal Secretary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.No.25795 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 17.03.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

W.P.No.25795 of 2019

Paramasivam

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Principal Secretary / Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, No.12, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010.

¶11

2.The Regional Manager, Raghavan Commercial Complex, 2nd Floor, No.36, Vellala Street, Ariyalur District - 621 704.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Se.Mu.AA.No.AD2/63710/2014 dated 10.11.2016 and consequently, direct the respondents to disburse the petitioner's service benefits viz., gratuity, bonus and retirement benefits.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Anbuselvan

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.S.Senthil Kumar

¶16

Page No.1 of 6

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.25795 of 2019

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining

¶21

to the proceedings of the 1st respondent in

¶22

Se.Mu.AA.No.AD2/63710/2014 dated 10.11.2016 and consequently, direct the respondents to disburse the petitioner's service benefits viz., gratuity, bonus and retirement benefits.

¶23

2. Heard Mr.K.Anbuselvan, learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶24

Mr.S.Senthil Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and

¶25

perused the materials available on record.

¶26

3. The petitioner was working as a Record Clerk in the respondent Corporation and has been dismissed from service on 27.06.2014. The First Appeal preferred before the first respondent was also dismissed on 10.11.2016. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the order of punishment imposed by the second respondent and the order confirming the same passed by the first respondent appellate authority.

¶27

Page No.2 of 6

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.25795 of 2019

¶30

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

¶31

impugned order has been passed without appreciating the merits of the matter.

¶32

5. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has chosen to be in unauthorized absence from 28.09.2011 to 21.03.2013. The second respondent has framed charges against the petitioner in accordance with TNCSC Employee's Service Rules and a Domestic Enquiry Officer was appointed on 21.11.2013. After conducting the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 02.06.2014 by stating that the charges are held to be proved.

¶33

6. The petitioner has not raised any grounds either on facts or on law, but assailed the impugned orders. A proper enquiry has been conducted during the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and that has culminated into an order of punishment on the charges against the petitioner were proved. It is brought to the knowledge of the Court

¶34

Page No.3 of 6

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.No.25795 of 2019

¶37

that on 21.04.2016 some communication has been established by the Manager (Gratuity) of TNCSC to the petitioner with regard to payment of his gratuity. If the same has not been paid so far, the second respondent shall renew the communication with the authority concerned and ensure the gratuity, if any, payable to the petitioner is paid. However, I do not find any merits in the Writ Petition.

¶38

7. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶39

Index : Yes /No 17.03.2025 Speaking / Non-speaking Neutral Citation : Yes / No gsk

¶40

Page No.4 of 6

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.No.25795 of 2019

¶43

¶44

1.The Principal Secretary / Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, No.12, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010.

¶45

2.The Regional Manager, Raghavan Commercial Complex, 2nd Floor, No.36, Vellala Street, Ariyalur District - 621 704.

¶46

Page No.5 of 6

¶47

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

W.P.No.25795 of 2019

R.N.MANJULA, J.

gsk

W.P.No.25795 of 2019

¶52

17.03.2025

¶53

Page No.6 of 6

¶54

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

Paramasivam v. The Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paramasivam v. The Principal Secretary

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

K.G.Thennavan Bramma Rayan, Vs Government of Tamil Nadu

Yasodha Vs The Additional Chief Secretary/ Commissioner of Revenue Administration

S.Rajan Vs Indian Overseas Bank

R.Rajasekar Vs The Union of India

T.J.Murugan Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

M.Vijayalakshmi Vs The Principal Secretary to Government