G. Vellaichamy vs Venketraj & Others

S.M. Subramaniam, J

This Contempt Application is filed to punish the respondents for their willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.12864 of 2012 dated 06.03.2018.

This Court passed an order on 06.03.2018, which reads as follows:-

"6. The Writ Petitioner is a retired employee and the impugned order of recovery was issued after 12 years from the date of his retirement. There is no misrepresentation on the part of the Writ Petitioner and therefore, the recovery imposed is in violation of principles of natural justice as per the decision cited supra. However, it is made clear that the scale of pay as applicable and the revision of pension as per the Government Orders in force can be granted to the Writ Petitioner and if any mistake had occurred, the same can be corrected by the competent authority.`

However, recovery cannot be made and accordingly, the impugned order passed by the third respondent in proceedings in Ref.TNSTC/DGL/PP/PPO 61-2, dated 26.09.2012 is quashed in respect of recovery alone and the respondents are directed to correct the errors, if any, in the revision of pension or scale of pay.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed. If any recovery is already made based on the impugned order, the same is directed to be reimbursed to the Writ Petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed."

Pursuant to the order of this Court, this Contempt Application is filed. The respondents have filed counter affidavit in the Contempt Petition, narrating the facts and circumstances, which reads as follows:-

"5. I humbly submit that the State has implemented the 6th Pay Commission and revised the minimum pension of Rs.3030/- w.e.f., January, 2007 as per G.O.Ms.No.235, dated 01.06.2009 and the same was communicated to all corporations. Thereafter, the Transport Corporation has revised the pensionary benefits to the employees who were drawn pension both from TNSTD and Transport Corporation as per Section 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Transport Employee's Pension Fund Trust Rules. During the verification the management has identified that petitioner was being paid more pension of amount Rs.41,634/- for period from January, 2007 to May 2012.

I humbly submit that the management has issued show cause notice dated 09.07.2012 to the petitioner for recovery of excess amount paid to him by the management. On 17.07.2017, the petitioner submitted his explanation which is not agreeable to the management. So, on 26.09.2012 impugned recovery order was passed for recovery of amount of Rs.43,017/-along with calculation sheet to the petitioner by stating that recovery shall commence from September, 2012. Thereafter, for the month of October, 2012 amount of Rs.4,061 was recovered from the petitioner's pension. In the situation, the petitioner has filed Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.12864 of 2012 before this Hon'ble Court praying to quash the impugned recovery order. On 04.10.2012 the Hon'ble High Court has granted interim stay for further recovery of amount. In pursuant to interim order recovery of amount was stopped.

I humbly submit that on 06.03.2018 this Hon'ble Court has allowed the above said Writ Petition by following direction:

Para 7:

"Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed. If any recovery is already made based on the impugned order, the same is directed to be reimbursed to the Writ Petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed."

By aggrieving the said order the management has preferred Writ Appeal before this Hon'ble Court in W.A. (MD)No.1539 of 2018 and the same was dismissed by confirming the learned Single Judge order dated 06.03.2018. After obtaining the said Writ Appeal order copy, the management has submitted proposal before the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Trust at Chennai for getting approval to disburse the recovered amount to the petitioner.

I humbly submit that meantime, the petitioner has filed Contempt Petition in Cont.P. (MD)No.1292 of 2018. After obtaining approval from pension fund trust, the management has issued a cheque amount of Rs.4,061/- which was recovered from the petitioner during in the month of October, 2012, but the petitioner has refused to accept the same. I further submit that I am rendering unconditional apologies for delay in complying the impugned order dated 06.03.2018 and further the said delay on part of the respondent is neither willful nor wanton only for the financial crisis faced by the respondent / contemnor reasons stated above."

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents states that the cheque amount of Rs.4,061/- was offered to the contempt petitioner and he refused to receive the same.

Counter affidavit filed by the respondents clearly states that the amount of recovery was Rs.43,017/- and subsequently, recovery was commenced from September, 2012 and recovery was done only during the month of October, 2012 and thereafter, stay was granted by this Court and recovery was stopped. In view of the fact that the amount of recovery recovered from the writ petitioner was Rs.4,061/- and on account of the interim stay granted, no further recovery was imposed. The said amount is to be reimbursed with reference to the impugned order of recovery, which was quashed by this Court in the Writ Petition.

This being the factum, the writ petitioner is at liberty to receive the cheque amount, which is already made ready by the respondents from the office of the third respondent.

In this view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents have not committed any contempt of Court, warranting punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act. Accordingly, this Contempt Petition stands closed.