Vasuthevan Vs. The Managing Director, Office of the Managing Director, Chennai and Others

Vasuthevan vs The Managing Director, Office of the Managing Director, Chennai and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Nov 15, 2016

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1187153

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1187153
Court: Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge: The Honourable Dr.(Mrs.) Justice S. Vimala
Decided On: Nov 15, 2016
Case Number: Writ Petition (MD) No. 21821 of 2016
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981 - Section 3 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 Subsistence Allowance Petitioner was appointed as salesman in Third Respondent/TASMAC Third Respondent audit found deficit of prescribed amount As Petitioner was suspended inspite of Supervisor admittin...

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vasuthevan

Respondent

The Managing Director, Office of the Managing Director, Chennai and Others

Excerpt

tamil nadu payment of subsistence allowance act, 1981 - section 3 - constitution of india, 1950 - article 226 subsistence allowance petitioner was appointed as salesman in third respondent/tasmac third respondent audit found deficit of prescribed amount as petitioner was suspended inspite of supervisor admitting that he had entirely misappropriated prescribed amount petitioner made representation to respondent to pay subsistence allowance as petitioner s representation was not considered -petitioner sought for payment of subsistence allowance to effectively defend enquiry proceedings hence this writ petition - court held as per section 3 (1) (2) of act, 1981 -an employee who is placed under suspension shall be entitled to receive prescribed subsistence allowance for prescribed days of suspension period from employer, unless he accepts any other employment as it is not case of respondents that enquiry proceedings is prolonged beyond prescribed days and it is also not case of respondents that petitioner had accepted any other employment during period of suspension in any other establishment as such third respondent was directed to pay subsistence allowance to petitioner within prescribed period writ petition was disposed. paras: (4, 5) .....to reinstate the petitioner in service in the post of shop salesman.) 1. this is a writ of mandamus seeking direction to the third respondent to pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner for the period of suspension from 26.10.2013. 2. the brief facts leading to this writ petition:- the petitioner was appointed as a salesman by the third respondent and he is working at tasmac shop no.7553, sivagangai town. the third respondent conducted monthly audit and found out that there was a deficit of rs.55,49,920/-. thereafter, the third respondent conducted an enquiry and at that point of time, the supervisor viz., kalleswaran admitted that he had misappropriated the entire amount of rs.55,49,920/-. the supervisor had given a detailed statement that he is the only person liable for the entire amount. even after such a statement, the third respondent has issued an order of suspension against the petitioner (who was only a salesman), who was not concerned with the occurrence at all. thereafter, the petitioner preferred a representation, dated 23.09.2016, which is pending consideration before the respondents. 3. it is the grievance of the petitioner that the payment of subsistence allowance, which is mandatory, is not paid and unless the amount is paid, the petitioner would not be in a position to defend the enquiry proceedings in an effective manner. 4. at this juncture, it will be relevant to quote section 3 of the the tamil nadu payment of subsistence allowance act, 1981, which reads thus:- 3. (1) an employee who is placed under suspension payment of shall, during the period of such suspension, be entitled to subsistence receive payment from the employer as subsistence allowance, allowance, an amount equal to fifty percentum of the wages which the employee was drawing immediately before suspension, for the first ninety days reckoned from the date of such suspension : provided that where the period of suspension exceeds ninety days, but does not exceed one hundred and.....

Full Judgment

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to pay the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension from 26.10.2013 along with arrears of salary which is due and payable to the petitioner with interest for such delayed payment by considering the petitioners representation dated 23.09.2016 and consequently issue a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service in the post of shop salesman.)

1. This is a writ of Mandamus seeking direction to the third respondent to pay Subsistence allowance to the petitioner for the period of suspension from 26.10.2013.

2. The brief facts leading to this writ petition:-

The petitioner was appointed as a salesman by the third respondent and he is working at TASMAC Shop No.7553, Sivagangai Town. The third respondent conducted monthly audit and found out that there was a deficit of Rs.55,49,920/-. Thereafter, the third respondent conducted an enquiry and at that point of time, the Supervisor viz., Kalleswaran admitted that he had misappropriated the entire amount of Rs.55,49,920/-. The Supervisor had given a detailed statement that he is the only person liable for the entire amount. Even after such a statement, the third respondent has issued an order of suspension against the petitioner (who was only a salesman), who was not concerned with the occurrence at all. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a representation, dated 23.09.2016, which is pending consideration before the respondents.

3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the payment of subsistence allowance, which is mandatory, is not paid and unless the amount is paid, the petitioner would not be in a position to defend the enquiry proceedings in an effective manner.

4. At this juncture, it will be relevant to quote Section 3 of the The Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981, which reads thus:-

3. (1) An employee who is placed under suspension payment of shall, during the period of such suspension, be entitled to subsistence receive payment from the employer as subsistence allowance, allowance, an amount equal to fifty percentum of the wages which the employee was drawing immediately before suspension, for the first ninety days reckoned from the date of such suspension :

Provided that where the period of suspension exceeds ninety days, but does not exceed one hundred and eighty days, the employee shall be entitled to receive, after the said period of ninety days, a subsistence allowance equal to seventy-five percentum of the wages which the employee was drawing immediately before his suspension :

Provided further that where the period of suspension exceeds one hundred and eighty days, the employee shall be entitled to receive wages in full which the employee was drawing immediately before his suspension:

Provided also that where the enquiry or criminal proceeding is prolonged beyond the period of ninety days for reasons directly attributable to the employee, the subsistence allowance shall, for the period exceeding ninety days, be reduced to fifty percentum of the wages, which the employee was drawing immediately before his suspension.

(2) An employee shall not be entitled to receive any subsistence allowance if he accepts any other employment during the period of his suspension in any establishment other than the establishment where he had been working immediately before his suspension.

5. It is not the case of the respondents that the enquiry or criminal proceeding is prolonged beyond the period of ninety days for reasons directly attributable to the petitioner. It is also not the case of the respondents that the petitioner has accepted any other employment during the period of his suspension in any other establishment. Therefore, there is no disqualification for the petitioner either to receive the subsistence allowance or to get the reduced amount of subsistence allowance.

6. Under such circumstances, the third respondent is directed to pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner from 26.10.2013, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

Same Court & Year Chennai Madurai · 2016 Same Parties Vasuthevan vs The Managing Director, Office of the Managing D... Same Subject Education Same Judge The Honourable Dr.(Mrs.) Justice S. Vimala

Education