S.Srinivasan v. The District Collector
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.11.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH S.Srinivasan
...Petitioner
-Vs1.The District Collector, Salem.
2.The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem - 7.
3.The Management, Thuthikulam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Special Officer, Thuthikulam Post, Namakkal Taluk & District.
...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the order dated 16.06.2004 of the 3rd respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to pay the petitioner the gratuity of Rs.32,227/-.
1/6
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ajoy Khose For R1 : Mr.D.Gopal, Government Advocate For R2 : Mr.G.Velu, Additional Government Pleader For R3 : No Appearance
ORDER
Heard Mr.V.Ajoy Khose, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.D.Gopal, learned Government Advocate for the first respondent and Mr.G.Velu, learned Additional Government Pleader for the second respondent. There is no representation on behalf of the third respondent, so also in the last hearing on 18.10.2022.
2. Alleging payment of excess gratuity for the period between 01.07.1997 and 29.02.2000, the third respondent herein had issued the impugned order dated 16.06.2004 for recovery of the excess amount of Rs.32,747/-.
3. In connection with the alleged excess payment for the period 2/6
between 01.07.1997 and 29.02.2000, the petitioner herein had earlier approached the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act in P.G.No.53 of 2002 and by an order dated 21.07.2003, an amount of Rs.32,227/- was computed as the dues payable to the petitioner herein. Challenging this order, the petitioner had preferred a Writ Petition in W.P.No.29856 of 2003, which came to be dismissed on 18.12.2003, by granting liberty to the third respondent to prefer an appeal against the order of the Controlling Authority.
4. It is now stated that the third respondent had not filed any appeal and thus, the order of the Controlling Authority, dated 21.07.2003 has become final.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the third respondent had preferred W.P.No.29856 of 2003, they had not made any claim for payment of the excess amount over and above the sum of Rs.32,227/-. This apart, the petitioner herein had retired from service on 29.02.2000 and after 4 years of his retirement, the impugned order has been passed without any prior notice calling for the petitioner's objections with 3/6
regard to the alleged excess payment and the consequential recovery. The impugned order, thus, would be in violation of the principles of natural justice and on this ground also, the order requires to be quashed.
6. In the light of the above findings, the impugned order issued by the third respondent dated 16.06.2004 is quashed and accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs.
03.11.2022 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order hvk 4/6
To 1.The District Collector, Salem.
2.The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem - 7.
5/6
M.S.RAMESH,J.
hvk 03.11.2022 6/6