Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 980 (MAD)

Manimozhiyal v. Chief Executive Officer & Others

2006-04-06

N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

body2006
Judgment :- (This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.50145/Oa 2/97, dated 14.11.2002 and quash the same insofar as it directs recovery of Rs.2,15,250/- and direct the respondents to settle all the terminal benefits due to the death of petitioner’s husband viz., M. Pugazhendi Pulavar, with interest at the rate of 18% p.a., including the family pension.) Prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of the first respondent dated 14.11.2002 insofar as it directs recovery of Rs.2,15,250/- an direct the respondents to settle all the terminal benefits due to the death of petitioner’s husband M. Pugazhendi Pulavar with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, including family pension. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows. (a) Petitioner’s husband M.Pugazhendi Pulavar was working as Khadi Assistant Grade-II in the first respondent Board. While he was working under the control of the second respondent herein at Khadi Kraft Stores, Jayankondam, he expired on 26.6.1997. According to the petitioner, her husband had worked for more than 25 years and no disciplinary proceeding was pending against him. Petitioner claims that since the Khadi Board is a Tamil Nadu Government Undertaking and she being the widow of the deceased Khadi Board employee, she is entitled to get the terminal benefits of the deceased Pugazhendi Pulavar, including the family pension since Khadi Board is governed under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. (b) Petitioner submitted a representation for getting family pension and other terminal benefits. The first respondent passed an order sanctioning a provisional family pension at the rate of Rs.2,250/- per month from 27.6.1997 and paid till 26.6.2004. From June, 2004 onwards, payment of the said provisional family pension was also stopped. (c) Petitioner states that the first respondent, by his proceeding dated 14.11.2002, sanctioned family pension and also DCRG payable to the petitioner. The first respondent passed an order sanctioning a provisional family pension at the rate of Rs.2,250/- per month from 27.6.1997 and paid till 26.6.2004. From June, 2004 onwards, payment of the said provisional family pension was also stopped. (c) Petitioner states that the first respondent, by his proceeding dated 14.11.2002, sanctioned family pension and also DCRG payable to the petitioner. As per the said order, family pension was sanctioned at the rate of Rs.2,250/- p.m. from 27.6.1997 to 26.6.2004 and from 27.6.2004 at the rate of Rs.1,350/- p.m. and that the DCRG was worked out at Rs.1,12,500/-, but there was an order for recovery of Rs.2,1 5,250/- towards the loss said to have been sustained by the Jayankondam branch of the Khadi Board during 1995-96 and 1996-97. (d) Petitioner further states in the affidavit that during the period 1995-96 and 1996-97, the Khadi Board decided to promote credit sales to various Panchayats on the recommendations made by the Block Development Officer, Jayankondam, pursuant to which 2nd respondent issued orders to effect credit sales to various Village Panchayats and disburse the cloths for Uniforms to the Panchayat staffs and that all the credit sales have been made only on the orders of the second respondent. (e) The case of the petitioner is that her husband has noting to do with the said credit sales as well as dues from the Panchayat and therefore there is no justification on the part of the first respondent to order for recovery of the losses sustained by the Board from the DCRG amount payable to the petitioner’s husband to the tune of Rs.2,15 ,250/- by order dated 14.11.2002. Petitioner submitted various representations to cancel the said order, but without considering the same, respondents are compelling the petitioner to sign the pension papers. Petitioner also complains that she was not given any notice before ordering withholding of terminal benefits by the impugned order. Hence the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the impugned order dated 14.11.2002 is passed without issuing any notice to the petitioner and hence the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel also submits that a Khadi Board employee cannot be held responsible for non-collection of dues in view of the credit sales effected by the Board. Learned counsel also submits that a Khadi Board employee cannot be held responsible for non-collection of dues in view of the credit sales effected by the Board. According to the learned counsel, there is no basis for arriving at the said quantum. Learned counsel also cited a decision of this Court reported in 2002 (2) MLJ 559 (Anand v. The Accounts Officer, C/o.Telecom District Engineer, Dharmapuri). 4. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the respondents also. 5. The point in issue is whether the petitioner’s husband can be held responsible for the alleged loss incurred by the Khadi Board due to credit sales effected by it. 6. A similar issue arose before this Court in respect of a Co-Optex Employee in W.P.No.1938 of 2006 and this Court by order dated 27.3.2006, following an earlier decision of this Court reported in 2002 (2) MLJ 559 (Anand v. The Accounts Officer, C/o.Telecom District Engineer, Dharmapuri), allowed the writ petition. In the said reported decision a Khadi Board employee was proceeded for non-collection of the amounts due to the Board in view of the sales made on credit basis. This Court by order dated 16.4.2002 held that the Khadi Board employee cannot be held responsible for not collecting the amounts due to the Khadi Board towards materials lent on credit basis to various Government servants and for non-collection of the said dues. In paragraph 4 of the judgment learned judge referred similar orders passed in W.P.No.5982 of 1998 dated 3.7.2001 and also in W.P.Nos.497 to 499 of 1 997 dated 11.1.2001, wherein also this Court directed the respondents to release the payment due to the employee which was withheld with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date when the amount was withheld till the date of payment. The facts in the said case squarely applies to the facts of this case. 7. Following the above cited decisions, the impugned order dated 14.11.2002 passed by the first respondent herein is quashed. The respondents are directed to settle all the terminal benefits due to the petitioner with interest at 12% per annum and eligible family pension to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The writ petition is ordered with the above direction. No costs.