S. Sennan v. Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. , rep. by its Regional Manager
2009-02-10
K.K.SASIDHARAN, PRABHA SRIDEVAN
body2009
DigiLaw.ai
Judgment :- Prabha Sridevan, J. All the appellants are employees of Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, who have attained their age of superannuation. In the order permitting them to retire, it was specifically noted that this order waswithout prejudice to the recovery of the amount allegedly due to the Corporation. The petitioner has challenged the same. The learned Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to give a personal hearing. 2. The learned counsel submitted that when there was no enquiry, preceding the impugned order, before the employees retired themselves, personal hearing will be a mere formality and the employees will have no real opportunity to resist the recovery. The learned counsel referred to an unreported judgment in W.A.Nos.3055 to 3058 of 2003 dated 4. 2004 in which an identical order was challenged and the writ appeal ended in favour of the employees. We also find that the Civil Supplies Corporation itself has issued the following instruction, one in 7. 2005 and the other in 12. 2005. "Rc.No.AE3/45833/04 7. 2005 ...In the absence of provision it is requested not to issue retirement order "without a rider that they are permitted to retire from service without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings/ recovery proceedings / audit recovery / audit objection etc. Rc.No.AGR2/21034/84 12. 2005 ...The Senior Regional Managers/ Regional Managers are therefore informed that as per payment of Gratuity Act, gratuity payment to the retired employee and to the legal heirs of the deceased employees will be settled by adjusting the following loans and advances only. 1. Coop – thrift loan outstanding amount 2. Staff (Personal) loans and advances" 3. Of course, these instructions have been issued prior to the impugned order, but they only confirm what this Court had stated in the writ appeal referred to above. The learned counsel also submitted that following this, the learned Single Judge also had allowed the writ petition filed by a retired employee quashing the order of recovery after the date of retirement without any prior enquiry. 4. The writ appeals are therefore, allowed. The respondents are directed to give a personal hearing to the appellants expeditiously, preferably within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.