IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14.07.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.NO.49419 OF 2006 (O.A.NO.4161 OF 2001) A.Balan ... Petitioner VS. 1.The Director of Technical Education Chennai – 600 025. 2.The Additional Director of Technical Education (Polys) Directorate of Technical Education Chennai – 600 025. 3.The Principal Government Polytechnic Udhagamandalam. 4.The Accountant General 263, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 018. ... Respondents PRAYER: This Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of transfer of Original Application in O.A.No.4161 of 2001 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to call for the records relating letter No.41140/H5/98-2 dated 26.03.2010 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same, consequently to direct the respondents to issue pensionary benefits and to direct the 2nd respondent to disburse the gratuity dues to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Deivasigamani For Respondents 1-3 : Mr.R.Ravichandran Additional Government Pleader https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R 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. 2.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. 3.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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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. 4.The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. TK Sd/- Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar To 1.The Director of Technical Education Chennai – 600 025. 2.The Additional Director of Technical Education (Polys) Directorate of Technical Education Chennai – 600 025. 3.The Principal Government Polytechnic Udhagamandalam. 4.The Accountant General 263, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 018. + 1 cc to Mr. V. Vijay Shankar, Advocate SR No.42118 SV(CO) SR/20.7.2011 W.P.NO.49419 OF 2006 (O.A.NO.4161 OF 2001) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/