B.Shanmukham v. The State Of Tamilnadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 19.02.2021 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY W.A.No.1158 of 2020 B.Shanmukham ...Appellant Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Home (Police 18 Department) Fort St.George, Chennai 9 2.The Director, Forensic Sciences Department, Mylapore, Chennai 4 3.The Accountant General, (Accountant and Entitlement) No.361, Anna Salai, Chennai 18

...Respondents

Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 11.11.2020 passed in W.P.No.18910 of 2010.

Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records relating to the 1st respondents order made in G.O.(2D) 158 Home (police 18) Department dated 31.03.2009 and the 2nd respondent's proceedings made in PRO No.A5/40577-A/2009 dated 08.07.2009, to quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents 1 to 3 to revise and refix the pension and other benefits by treating the period of superannuation as 31.03.2009, instead of 30.06.2007 and to extend all service and monetary benefits forwhwith.

For Appellant ::

Ms.N.R.Jasmine Padma

For Respondents ::

Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, State Government Pleader

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) The appellant was engaged in the Forensic Sciences Department and was inducted into service in 1974. He applied for alteration of his date of birth from July 1, 1949 to March 23, 1951. Such application was allowed without apparently following the procedure laid down in rule 49 of the General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services, 1955.

2. By an order of March 31, 2009 the mistake committed by the department was sought to be corrected. However, by such time, the appellant had already rendered service beyond his age of superannuation. Accordingly, the period from July 1, 2007 to March 31, 2009 was directed to be treated as re-employment.

3. The grievance of the appellant is that despite only providing for the period as re-employment after the age of superannuation reckoned on the basis of the original date of birth, by subsequent proceedings, some deductions from the payments already paid to the appellant were sought to be made. It is evident that by an order dated August 7, 2009 a princely sum of Rs.27,836/- was required to be deducted out of the gratuity due to the appellant.

4. By the judgment and order impugned dated November 11, 2020, the writ petition has been dismissed. But the amount has been directed to be recovered from the petitioner in 12 installments commencing January, 2021. The appellant is aggrieved by the order and says that the part of the action on the part of the employer to recover the perceived excess payment of Rs.27,836/- should have been set aside.

5. There is no basis to the appellant's claim. Notwithstanding the appellant's assertion that the appellant had applied for alteration of the date of birth in the year 1977, the application on record appears to have been filed on December 18, 1993. Since it was such application which was on record and the date of the application was nearly 19 years after he was inducted into service, such application could not have been countenanced. The principal order assailed in the writ petition, the one dated March 31, 2009 is unexceptionable and calls for no interference. By the subsequent order of August 7, 2009 only the additional payments made by way of increments at the time of the "re-employment of the petitioner" after he attained the age of superannuation were attempted to be recovered. It will be evident that the increments granted were of value of Rs.325/-

against the appellant's monthly salary which was in excess of Rs.12,000/-. Considering the paltry amount that was directed to be recovered from the appellant against the virtually unquestionable position that the appellant worked for nearly two years in excess of the appellant's entitlement and drew substantial salary therefor, the judgment and order impugned cannot be faulted. At any rate, the pill was made easier to swallow, so to say, by permitting the deduction to be made in installments.

6. There is no merit in the appeal and the judgment and order dated November 11, 2020 do not warrant any interference. W.A.No.1158 of 2020 is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.14273 of 2020 is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar tar To:

1.The Secretary, Home (Police 18 Department) Fort St.George, Chennai 9 2.The Director, Forensic Sciences Department, Mylapore, Chennai 4 3.The Accountant General, (Accountant and Entitlement) No.361, Anna Salai, Chennai 18 +1cc to Mr.L. Chandrakumar, Advocate, S.R.No.10157 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.10074 NSN11(CO) SM/04/03/2021 W.A.No.1158 of 2020