M.Manoharan, v. Managing Director,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 03.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN W.P.No. 22370 of 2016 M.Manoharan ... Petitioner ..Vs..
1.
Managing Director Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board Chennai - 600 005.
2.
The Chief Engineer (Incharge) T.W.A.D.Board Bharathi Park Road Saibaba Colony, Coimbatore - 641 043.
3.
Superintending Engineer T.W.A.D Board Coimbatore Nilgiris Circle Vilankurichi Road Coimbatore - 641 004.
4.
The Chief Engineer T.W.A.D Board Coimbatore - 18.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to Se.Mu. Proceedings No. 4238/CO9333/A3/C.E/Covai/2012 dated 06.07.2015 issued by the second respondent and to quash the same and consequently, directing the respondents to pay the salary for 143 days with interest until it is paid.
For Petitioner :: M/s. R.Puspalatha for Mr.C.Deivasigamani For Respondents :: Mr. N.Ganesh Kumar
ORDER
The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus seeking interference with an order dated 06.07.2015 issued by the second respondent in proceedings No.
4238/CO9333/A3/C.E/Covai/2012. The petitioner seeks salary to be paid for 143 days.
2.
In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it had been stated that the petitioner M.Manoharan, who had retired as Lab Assistant on 31102010 in the respondent T.W.A.D. Board. He was working under the
second respondent, the Chief Engineer (Incharge), T.W.A.D Board, at that particular point of time. His benefits had been deducted with salary for 153 days from 01.08.26 till 02.01.2007. Out of those 153 days, 10 days salary had been however paid, consequent to the fact that the said period was treated as compulsory wait by the respondents herein. 3.
Brief facts would indicate that the petitioner was originally issued with transfer order from Erode to Coimbatore. The transfer order was not issued within time and he was asked to wait further orders. He was then issued with further transfer order from Erode to Salem. Questioning that particular order, the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No. 36608 of 2006 which came to be dismissed by an order dated 18.12.2006 by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The petitioner was directed to go over to Salem and join duty.
4.
In the interregnum period, the petitioner however did not go over to his office at Erode. He stayed at home. He cannot get salary if he stayed at home. He should discharge official duty at some place or the other. The transfer order to Salem was upheld and subsequently, the
transfer order was communicated to him. After retirement, finding that the salary of 153 days had been withheld, the petitioner had given a representation and on considering such representation, 10 day's salary was paid to him holding that period could be considered as compulsory wait period. This was the period between which the two transfer orders were issued to him. Out of the remainder 143 days, the reasoning of the respondent is that they had treated 16 days as Earned Leave from 01.08.2006 to 16.08.2006 and Earned Leave on personal work from 17.08.2006 till 22.11.206 for 98 days. They had however held back a further 39 days salary as leave with loss of pay. That is from 23.11.206 till 31.12.2006.
5.
The entire proceedings had been communicated to the petitioner on 06.07.2015, when he had retired on 31.10.2010. The rules provide that such an action could be initiated within a period of 4 years from the date of retirement and any proceedings could be initiated only when there is financial loss which had occurred to the respondent office. If the petitioner had been paid excess salary, then an order could have been passed to directing him to return back the salary. But here is a case where the salary was not paid at all.
6.
Taking into consideration, the fact that the respondents themselves has stated that the period of 16 days could be treated as Earned Leave and further period of 90 days could be treated as Earned Leave on personal work, I hold this salary should be paid, if the Earned Leave account is available with the petitioner herein.
7.
The respondents are therefore directed to rework that particular aspect and if the petitioner had Earned Leave credit, to convert that period of 16 days and 98 days into Earned Leave. The remainder portion of 39 days is leave on loss of pay, which would indicate that the petitioner had exhausted casual leave available and the Earned Leave available and all other leave available at that period. The petitioner cannot be paid salary for those days. 8.
The impugned order is set aside. A direction is therefore issued that the number of days for which the salary should not be paid is reduced from 143 days effectively to 39 days. For the remainder period of 16 days and 98 days, the respondents are directed to examine the service record of the petitioner herein and if there is credit of Earned Leave pay the salary for that period 114 days.
9.
In the view of the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed
of. The respondents may take into consideration, the rules governing the service to the petitioner and if he is entitled for interest, pay interest at the rate of appropriate rate.
03.07.2023 vsg Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking / Non Speaking Order To 1.
Managing Director Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board Chennai - 600 005.
2.
The Chief Engineer (Incharge) T.W.A.D.Board Bharathi Park Road Saibaba Colony, Coimbatore - 641 043.
3.
Superintending Engineer T.W.A.D Board Coimbatore Nilgiris Circle Vilankurichi Road Coimbatore - 641 004.
4.
The Chief Engineer T.W.A.D Board Coimbatore - 18.
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J., vsg W.P.No. 22370 of 2016 03.07.2023