AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The Petitioner worked as Principal in-charge at Government Polytechnic, Udhagamandalam. He retired from
service on 31.01.1997. While he was in service, a Community Polytechnic Scheme was in vogue. As per the Scheme, the concern Principals of
the Government Polytechnics were directed to establish workshops outside the Polytechnics in selected centres to train the nearby people. A
Memorandum of Understanding was made by one Mr. R.S. Shanmugasundaram, Principal, Government Polytechnic, Ooty for a period from
1995 to 2000 with the Director Mr. Balan Menon of Women''s Welfare and Progressive Society, Ooty. During the period of Mr. R.S.
Shanmugasundaram, some of the machineries were sent to the aforesaid Women''s Society to train the nearby people. While so, the said Society
was closed at some point of time, but the machineries given by the Government Polytechnic, Ooty were not returned. For the non return of
machineries supplied to the Women''s Society, the DCRG payable to the Petitioner has been withheld. The Petitioner has sought for payment of
DCRG and the same was rejected by the second Respondent vide impugned order dated 26.03.2001. Challenging the same, the Petitioner has
filed the Original Application in O.A. No. 4161 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal.
In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as W.P. No. 49419 of 2006. The
Respondents have not filed any reply affidavit.
The Petitioner retired from service on 31.01.1997. The fourth Respondent authorized the payment of entire terminal benefits, i.e., pension,
DCRG etc. However, the gratuity amount of Rs. 99,297/- payable to the Petitioner was withheld by the Respondents 1 to 3 on the ground that
certain machineries that were given by the Petitioner to the Women''s Welfare and Progressive Society, Ooty were not returned and that Society
was wound up. According to the Petitioner, after his retirement, it was the responsibility of the successor to take steps for recovery of the
machineries. In any event, the payment of gratuity is governed by Rule 69, 70 and 71 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. To ascertain the amount
due, Rule 70 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules should be invoked. In this case, the amount due is not ascertained and hence, the Respondents
should have invoke Rule 71 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. They should have asked the Petitioner for surety or cash deposit or otherwise, they
should have assessed and adjusted the dues within a period of twelve months from the date of retirement. In this case, admittedly the amount due is
not yet assessed. As per Rule 69 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, gratuity shall not be withheld unless there is a departmental or judicial
proceedings initiated against a Government servant, without prejudice for his retirement, while permitting him to retire from service. In this case,
there is no departmental or judicial proceedings pending at any time against the Petitioner. Hence, I am of the view that the impugned order is liable
to be interfered with. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby quashed. The Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to pay DCRG to the Petitioner
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.