N RANGASWAMI Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the third respondent in No.SEV/Adm.2/A3/100%DCRG/98, dated 5.12.1998, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to pay the DCRG together with interest at 15% per annum from the date of petitioner's retirement and till date of payment.

(2.) The respondents have been served and they have entered appearance through Mr.V.Radhakrishnan. The respondents have also filed their counter. The writ petitioner being a Senior citizen, the above writ petition came to be included in the special list. With the consent of counsel for either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

(3.) It is the case of the writ petitioner that he joined the respondent-Electricity Board on 4.9.1961 as Supervisor (Civil) and then promoted to the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) in the third respondent's Circle. On 21.7.1990, the petitioner requested the Chief Engineer to permit him to retire voluntarily with effect from 31.10.1990. By a memo dated 6.10.1990, the third respondent raised a query as to whether the petitioner has undergone any higher studies or training at Board's cost and if so whether the petitioner is willing to reimburse the expenses and also to pay the monetary difference of stoppage of increment that was ordered by the Superintending Engineer by memos dated 19.3.1990 and 5.7.1990. The petitioner by reply dated 20.8.1990 stated that he had not undergone any higher studies or training and also expressed his willingness to pay the monetary equivalent of the unexpired portion of the punishment of stoppage of increment. The second respondent by memo dated 7.10.1990 permitted the petitioner to retire w.e.f. 31.10.1990. A day prior to 31.10.1990 the petitioner was called upon to remit Rs.4387.50, less he will not be relieved and the said amount was claimed towards unexpired portion of the punishment of stoppage of increment imposed against him. The same was complied. The petitioner handed over the charges to his successor and he was allowed to retire on 31.10.1990 without any reservation or condition.