Parawise Remarks for the W.P.

3558/2020 submitted by the

The first and second paragraphs of the affidavit are introductory in nature and

are not denied by the respondents.

Remarks for paragraph No. 3

The facts as disclosed in the petition that the petitioner entered the service of

the corporation on 25.01.1982 and that he reached the age of superannuation on

31.01.2012 and that on the date of retirement he was holding the post of Deputy

Manager (Quality Control) in the Nagapattinam Region are to be proved by the

petitioner. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Quality Inspector in pursuance

of the proceedings of the Senior Regional Manager, TNCSC, Thanjavur in Na.ka.

A5/27726/1981 dated 19.01.1982 on a temporary basis and in pursuance of the

proceedings of the Senior Regional Manager, TNCSC, Thanjavur in Na.ka.

A4/26307/1998 dated 13.07.1988 through which his services were regularized as a

permanent employee with effect from 04.07.1984. The petitioner was allowed to retire

from services after he attained the age of superannuation without prejudice to pending

court cases and to the recovery of the amount payable by the petitioner.

The loss occasioned by the petitioner could not be recovered from the petitioner

as the petitioner had filed writ petitions in W.P. 38509/2005, W.P. 38513/2005, W.P.

38514/2005, W.P. 38515/2005 W.P. 38516/2005 and W.P. 38517/2005 challenging the

recovery proceedings initiated by the corporation and had obtained stay of the recovery

proceedings and a sum of Rs. 2, 07,271/- could not be recovered from the petitioner as

a result of the stay orders. The petitioner in total is bound to pay a sum of Rs. 19,

75,135.35/- for the loss occasioned by him while he had been in service. The amount of

Rs. 1, 90,792/-payable to the petitioner towards the earned leave and leave unearned

on private affairs was adjusted in the amounts to be paid by the petitioner to the

corporation in pursuance of the proceedings of the Senior Regional Manager, TNCSC,

circular no. HD3/64989/2010 dated 28.07.2010.

Remarks for paragraph No. 4

The averment of the petitioner that recovery orders were passed contrary to the

service regulations and against the canons of justice is not correct. The recovery orders

were passed in strict adherence to the rules and regulations and circulars issued by the

corporation from time to time. The petitioner’s averment that the interim orders in the

writ petitions filed by the petitioner against the recovery proceeding would not have

bearing on the present writ for disbursement of terminal benefits is not tenable in law.

Remarks for paragraph No. 5

No remarks.

Remarks for paragraph No. 6 & 7

It is true that the provident fund of the petitioner had been paid and that the

gratuity and encashment of accumulated leave were withheld. It was the petitioner who

had filed the writ petitions and it is he who had obtained interim orders to stay the

recovery proceedings initiated by the corporation. It is also true that the writ petition

1607/2020 was allowed on 27.01.2020. But the Honourable High Court of Judicature

had directed the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the corporation and had

directed the corporation consider the representation within a period of six weeks from

the date of receipt of the order. The petitioner has suppressed in his petition as to the

fresh representation made by him and the order dated 13.05.2020 passed by the SRM,

TNCSC, Nagapattinam in Na.Ka. No. D3/795/2020 rejecting the fresh representation of

the petitioner on the ground that the amount payable as earned leave and leave

unearned on private affairs had been adjusted in the amount payable by the petitioner

to the corporation on account of the loss occasioned by him while he was in service.

Remarks for paragraph No. 8

be withheld as per law in execution of any decree or order under the Payment of

Gratuity Act is not sustainable as Section 13 of the Act is not at all applicable to

forfeiture of the gratuity amount by the employer. It is true that the petitioner preferred

appeal before the appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act. But the

allegation of the petitioner that the gratuity is not released without any valid reasons is

not right.

Remarks for paragraph No. 9

The averment of the petitioner that the third respondent has issued certificate of

recovery under Section 8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act to the first respondent is

admitted.

Remarks for paragraph No. 10

No remarks.

Remarks for paragraph No. 11

It is true that the first respondent sent a memo dated 20.12.2019 to take action

on the representation of the petitioner for disbursal of gratuity. But it was not

considered due to the pendency of writs filed by the petitioner and the stay orders

obtained by the petitioner in those writs.

Remarks for paragraph No. 12

It is true that the petitioner’s claim was rejected for the above mentioned

reason.

Remarks for paragraph No. 13

The personal visits of the petitioner to the first respondent’s office are not known

to the corporation.

Remarks for paragraph No. 14

loss occasioned by the petitioner while he was in service. Section 13 of the Payment of

Gratuity Act does not have any relevance as it relates to attachment of the gratuity

amount in execution of a decree of a civil or revenue court.

Remarks for paragraph No. 15

The second respondent has not taken into account the pendency of the writ

petitions filed by the petitioner while disposing of the appeal preferred by the petitioner.

Remarks for paragraph No. 16

The first respondent has duly taken note of the writ petitions filed by the

petitioner and the interim orders obtained by the petitioner and has taken into account

the amounts to be paid by the petitioner to the corporation for the loss occasioned by

him while he was in service.

Remarks for paragraph No. 17

The allegations leveled against the first respondent and the Government officials

do not have any merit and are unwarranted.

Remarks for paragraph No. 18 & 19

The petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition as any

direction to the first respondent to recover the amount payable as gratuity to the

petitioner would amount to denial of the rightful recovery proceedings of the

corporation and as the recovery proceedings are sub judice before the Honourable High

Court of Judicature at Madras.

The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Quality Inspector in pursuance of

the proceedings of the Senior Regional Manager, TNCSC, Thanjavur in Na.ka.

A5/27726/1981 dated 19.01.1982 on a temporary basis and in pursuance of the

proceedings of the Senior Regional Manager, TNCSC, Thanjavur in Na.ka.

A4/26307/1998 dated 13.07.1988 through which his services were regularized as a

permanent employee with effect from 04.07.1984. The petitioner was allowed to retire

from services after he attained the age of superannuation without prejudice to pending

court cases and to the recovery of the amount payable by the petitioner.

The loss occasioned by the petitioner could not be recovered from the petitioner

as the petitioner had filed writ petitions in W.P. 38509/2005, W.P. 38513/2005, W.P.

38514/2005, W.P. 38515/2005 W.P. 38516/2005 and W.P. 38517/2005 challenging the

recovery proceedings initiated by the corporation and had obtained stay of the recovery

proceedings and a sum of Rs. 2, 07,271/- could not be recovered from the petitioner as

a result of the stay orders. The petitioner in total is bound to pay a sum of Rs. 19,

75,135.35/- for the loss occasioned by him while he had been in service. The amount of

Rs. 1, 90,792/-payable to the petitioner towards the earned leave and leave unearned

on private affairs was adjusted in the amounts to be paid by the petitioner to the

corporation in pursuance of the proceedings of the Senior Regional Manager, TNCSC,

Nagapattinam in Na.ka. E1/6759/2011 dated 16.05.2014 in consonance with the

circular no. HD3/64989/2010 dated 28.07.2010.

Now the petitioner has filed the writ petition seeking to direct the District

Collector, Nagapattinam to recover the amount awarded by the second respondent

(Appellate authority under Payment of Gratuity Act) from the TNCSC (fourth

respondent).