Judgment : 1. With the consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner was employed as a Driver in the respondent Corporation. While so, by an order dated 22.03.2012, the petitioner was imposed with the penalty of increment cut for two years with cumulative effect. On an appeal filed by the petitioner, the said punishment was reduced to one year increment cut with cumulative effect vide order dated 19.04.2012. 3. According to the petitioner, without any prior notice, on the date of retirement, i.e, on 30.01.2013, he was served with a memo dated 25.01.2013 by the second respondent, directing him to remit an amount of Rs.7,980/-being the monetary value of punishment of increment cut imposed on him for a period of one year on the score that implementation of punishment was not effected and that terminal benefits would be paid only after the above amount of Rs.7,980/-was paid. 4. The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition, challenging the order, dated 25.01.2013 of the second respondent and the consequent intimation, dated 08.11.2013 issued by the first respondent confirming the above said recovery. 5. When the matter came up on 16.09.2014, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter is squarely covered by a decision of the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.P.(Md) Nos.12705 of 2012 etc., batch. dated 01.08.2013 and sought time to produce the said order. 6. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced the order made in W.P.(Md)Nos.12705 of 2012 etc., batch. dated 01.08.2013 and relied on the following passage found in paragraph 5, which may be usefully extracted hereunder:- 5. In W.P.(MD)No.12834 of 2012, by order dated 16.11.2012, this Court in paragraphs 4 and 5 passed the following orders, observing as follows:- "4. When an order of penalty is passed, it is the duty of the disciplinary authority to see as to how far it could be enforced. The disciplinary authority, who imposed the penalty of stoppage of increment for four years with cumulative effect appears to have lost sight of the impending retirement of the petitioner from service. The service of persons like the petitioner are governed by the Standing Orders issued under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act. The disciplinary authority, who imposed the penalty of stoppage of increment for four years with cumulative effect appears to have lost sight of the impending retirement of the petitioner from service. The service of persons like the petitioner are governed by the Standing Orders issued under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act. Though stoppage of increment for a specified duration, can be converted into recovery of the amount equivalent to the same, by virtue of certain provisions contained in the Fundamental Rules, in respect of Government servants, who reach superannuation before such penalties are implemented in full, the same logic may not apply to employees of Transport Corporations. The provisions of the Fundamental Rules may not per se apply to Transport Corporation employees. 5. In any event, the order of penalty at least should have taken care of the contingency and made it clear that a recovery of an equivalent amount will be ordered. But the penalty order dated 15.11.2011 does not state so. Even the order of retirement dated 28.07.2012 does not covert the penalty into one of recovery of the equivalent amount. Therefore, what has actually happened is a recovery without any order and that too effected after retirement. It is wholly illegal. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed direction (sic) the respondent to settle all the terminal benefits without any recovery to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any amount has already been paid, the same shall be deducted. No costs." As the petitioners herein are also identically placed, the above reasonings will hold good for these cases also. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents has not disputed the aforesaid proposition of law laid down by the Madurai Bench of this Court in the order dated 01.08.2013. 8. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders are quashed. The respondents are directed to settle the Labour Welfare Fund and other terminal benefits to the petitioner without any recovery, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.