S.Vaidhyanathan v. The Governmenr Of Tamilnadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.01.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.No.824 of 2018 S.Vaidhyanathan ..
Petitioner -vs1. The Government of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Secretary Revenue Department Secretariat Chennai 600 009
2. The District Collector Salem District Salem-1
3. The District Revenue Officer Salem District, Salem
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer Salem Division, Salem Collectorate Salem
5. The Tahsildar Salem Taluk, Salem
6. Mr.Murugaiyan
7. The Principal Accountant General (A&E) Tamil Nadu 361, Anna Salai, Teynampet Chennai 600 018 ..
Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to forthwith consider and pass orders on the representation dated 16.09.2017 and the reminder dated 28.11.2017 of the petitioner requesting to pay salary for the period from 01.03.1983 to 23.03.1983, from 06.04.1984 to 12.12.1985 and from 23.12.1985 to 13.02.1986 with interest to the petitioner and also to take appropriate action against Mr.Murugaiyan, the then Tahsildar, Salem, the sixth respondent
herein for tampering with the Service Register of the petitioner as if the petitioner was paid salary for the above periods. For Petitioner:: Mr.A.Bharathi for M/s Muthumani Doraisami For Respondents:: Mr.V.Prabhu 1 to 5 Government Advocate
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed so belatedly with a huge delay of 11 years from the date of retirement of the petitioner, that too, seeking a direction to pay his salary for the period from 1.3.83 to 23.3.83, from 6.4.84 to 12.12.85 and from 23.12.85 to 13.2.86 with interest to the petitioner and also to take appropriate action against the then Tahsildar.
2. When the petitioner was serving as Village Administrative Officer, he was issued with a charge memo on 18.1.2005 calling for explanation to the charges mentioned therein. On receipt of the same, he submitted his explanation on 20.9.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner, during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, attained the age of superannuation on 31.8.2006. Therefore, the fourth respondent passed an order on 31.8.2006 permitting him to retire from service on the afternoon of 31.8.2006 without prejudice to the pending disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter, the enquiry officer submitted a report on 31.1.2007 and the petitioner was also furnished thereof with the copy of the report with the second show cause notice calling for further explanation to the enquiry officer's report.
Accordingly, he submitted his explanation also to the report of the enquiry officer on 5.3.2007. Once again the petitioner was issued with another show cause notice on 27.5.2008 calling upon him to show cause as to why the proposed punishment of withholding Rs.750/- per month from his pension should not be imposed, for which also he submitted his explanation and finally, with the intervention of this Court vide order dated 17.9.2010, directing the first respondent to pass a final order, the first respondent has passed a final order in G.O.(2D) No.467, Revenue Department dated 20.8.2013 proposing the punishment of withholding of Rs.750/- per month from his pension for a period of three years.
The learned counsel further submitted that since his terminal benefits were not settled by the authorities even after passing the final order, a representation was given on 2.11.2015. Again there was no response. Having waited for a long time, he has also come to this Court with W.P.No.39372 of 2015 seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to consider his representation dated 2.11.
the Revenue Divisional Officer passed an order sanctioning provisional pension stating that there are several missing entries in his service register. After all these endeavours, the respondents have settled the service benefits.
3. But, in my considered opinion, in all these proceedings, the petitioner has not asked for the salary for the period from 1.3.83 to 23.3.83, from 6.4.84 to 12.12.85 and from 23.12.85 to 13.2.86. Moreover, when the writ petition has been filed to consider his representation, even in this representation dated 16.9.2017 and 28.11.2017 also, he has asked for the payment of salary for the above periods so belatedly. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CCC) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar ss To
1. The Secretary to Government Revenue Department Secretariat Chennai 600 009
2. The District Collector Salem District Salem-1
3. The District Revenue Officer Salem District, Salem
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer Salem Division, Salem Collectorate Salem
5. The Tahsildar Salem Taluk, Salem
6. The Principal Accountant General (A&E) Tamil Nadu 361, Anna Salai, Teynampet Chennai 600 018 + 1 cc to M/s Muthumani Doraisami Advocate,SR.2883 + 1 cc to The Govt.Pleader, SR.3684 W.P.No.824 of 2018 nri(co) nr 13/02/2018