Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 937 (MAD)

C. K. Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu

2014-04-16

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2014
Judgment : 1. Heard both sides. With the consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal, as the matter is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court dated 24.03.2011 in W.P.No.18838 of 2010. 2. The petitioner joined as Secondary Grade Teacher in the Adi Dravidar Welfare Department on 11.01.1974. He was promoted as B.T. Assistant on 04.06.1991 and further promoted as Middle School Headmaster on 07.12.2005. While he was working as a B.T. Assistant, he has also served as Hostel Warden, which is a equivalent post. Later, he was promoted as High School Headmaster on 01.08.2007. He retired from service on 31.01.2010. 3. In order to get the terminal benefits, the petitioner was required to get a "No Objection Certificate". He was insisted to deposit a sum of Rs.49,789/- for issuing "No Objection Certificate", since there was an audit objection relating to the purchase of essential commodities without prior sanction, for the period 1993-1994 and 1994-1995, while he served as Hostel Warden, in Vellore Region. Accordingly, the petitioner deposited the said amount on 17.09.2009. Thereafter, on retirement, entire terminal benefits were settled. 4. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.49,789/- that was remitted by him on 17.09.2009. 5. The said amount of Rs.49,789/- was sought to be remitted on the basis of audit objection that the petitioner purchased some essential commodities for the Hostel, without prior sanction. It is not the case of the respondents that there was fictitious purchase. In fact, the second respondent sent a proposal dated 03.08.2007 to the first respondent recommending to grant post approval for the purchases made by the petitioner, so as to set right the audit objection. 6. In similar circumstances, this Court allowed the writ petition in W.P.No.18838 of 2010 on 24.03.2011 (T.Gangadharan Vs. The District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer, Vellore, Vellore District) by setting aside the order seeking to recover the amount, representing the purchase of essential commodities for a Hostel by the writ petitioner therein, who was also a Hostel Warden. 6. In similar circumstances, this Court allowed the writ petition in W.P.No.18838 of 2010 on 24.03.2011 (T.Gangadharan Vs. The District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer, Vellore, Vellore District) by setting aside the order seeking to recover the amount, representing the purchase of essential commodities for a Hostel by the writ petitioner therein, who was also a Hostel Warden. The said judgment directly applies to the case on hand and also, as stated above, it is not the case of the respondents that it was a fictitious purchase and on the other hand, the second respondent himself has sought post approval for the expenditure incurred by the petitioner. 7. In these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.49,789/- remitted by the petitioner on 17.09.2009, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.