Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 3985 (MAD)

The Executive Engineer v. M. Sakthivel & Others

2008-10-31

M.JAICHANDREN

body2008
Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned order, dated 22. 2002, made in P.S.A.No.75 of 2001, on the file of the second respondent, as confirmed by the order, dated 9. 2002, made in A.P.S.A.No.3 of 2002, on the file of the third respondent and quash the same. 3. It has been stated that the first respondent was working as a Maintenance Assistant on a consolidated pay of Rs.1,000/- per month. Having been appointed, on 27. 97, he was entitled to an annual increment of 10%. On 210. 2000, the first respondent had been placed under suspension as he was involved in a theft case. An enquiry had been conducted and he had been dismissed from service. While so, the first respondent had filed P.S.A.No.75 of 2001, before the second respondent, under Section 4 of the Tamilnadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981, for the period 210. 2000 to 21.04.2001, claiming a sum of Rs.7,529/-. The second respondent had allowed the petition by his order, dated 22. 2002. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had filed an appeal in A.P.S.A.No.3 of 2002, before the third respondent. The said appeal had been dismissed by the third respondent by an order, dated 9. 2002. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the second and the third respondents had failed to see that the salary of the first respondent was only Rs.1300/- per month . They had also failed to note that, as per Section 3 of the Tamilnadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981, the first respondent is entitled to receive only 50% of the wages and the first respondent would have been eligible for payment of 75% of the subsistence allowance in case the period of suspension had exceeded 180 days. They had also failed to consider the fact that the criminal proceedings against the first respondent had been prolonged only due to the reasons attributable to the first respondent. They had also failed to consider the fact that the criminal proceedings against the first respondent had been prolonged only due to the reasons attributable to the first respondent. Further, the second and third respondents had failed to see that the original petition in P.S.A.No.75 of 2001, had been filed for a sum of Rs.7,529/- as subsistence allowance due to the first respondent, for the period from 210. 2000 to 24. 2001. However, the second respondent had ordered a sum of Rs.23,858/- to be paid to the first respondent, as subsistence allowance, which is beyond the scope of the application. In such circumstances, the impugned orders of the second respondent, dated 22. 2002 and the appellate order of the third respondent, dated 9. 2002, are erroneous, illegal and liable to be set aside by this Court. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent had submitted that the orders passed by the first and the second respondents, ordering a sum of Rs.23,858/- to be paid to the first respondent, as subsistence allowance, is valid in law. It was further submitted that the last drawn salary of the first respondent at the time of his suspension was, admittedly, Rs.1,700/- per month and not Rs.1,300/-, as claimed by the petitioner. Therefore, there is no error committed by the second and third respondents in awarding the said amount to the first respondent, since it was not in dispute that the first respondent had been under suspension till the date of the order. The first respondent need not be driven back to the second respondent for filing a fresh application for claiming the remaining amount for the period he was under suspension beyond 24. 2001. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the first respondent, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this court to interfere with the impugned orders, passed by the second and third respondents, as prayed for by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 7. The petitioner has not disputed the fact that the first respondent was kept under suspension beyond 24. 7. The petitioner has not disputed the fact that the first respondent was kept under suspension beyond 24. 2001 and therefore, the second respondent had calculated the amount of subsistence allowance due to the first respondent upto the date of the order passed by him. Further, it is clear that the last drawn salary of the first respondent was Rs.1700/- at the time of suspension of the petitioner from service, even though his monthly salary might have been reduced thereafter. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is nothing irregular or illegal in the impugned order, dated 22. 2002, passed by the second respondent and the order, dated 9. 2002, passed by the third respondent holding that an amount of Rs.23,858/- is due to be paid to the first respondent, as subsistence allowance. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs.