V.DHANABAGIYAM Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR/INSPECTOR OF PANCHAYATS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. N.Manokaran, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. P.Balathandayutham, Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the First and Second Respondents, Mr. R.Rajeswaran, Learned Counsel for the Third Respondent and Mr. P.Muthusamy, Learned Counsel appearing for the Fourth Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

(2.) The Petitioner and the Fourth Respondent contested in the election for the post of President of Kuppichipalayam Village Panchayat in Namakkal District held on 17/10/2011 in which the Fourth Respondent was declared elected. Though the Principal District Judge, Namakkal by order dtd. 19/10/2012 dismised the Election Petition in O.P. No. 103 of 2011 filed by the Petitioner challenging the said election of the Fourth Respondent, it was set aside by order dtd. 16/2/2015 in C.R.P. (NPD) No. 505 of 2013 passed by this Court. In the order dtd. 28/8/2015 in the Writ Petition in W.P. No. 15772 of 2015 filed by the Petitioner, it was held by this Court as follows:-

(3.) It is accepted that the Government of Tamil Nadu by G.O. Ms. No. 54, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department (PR4) Department dtd. 29/6/2012 had fixed Rs.1,000.00 as monthly honorarium for the Presidents of Village Panchayats under the proviso to Sec. 82 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, with effect from the date of assumption of the elected representatives of the local bodies from 25/10/2011 onwards. As rightly contended by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relying on the decision of this Court in P.Veludurai -vs- Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly (Order dtd. 26/2/2019 in W.P. No. 30102 of 2011), it would follow as a necessary consequence of setting aside the election of the Fourth Respondent as the President of Kuppichipalayam Village Panchayat, that it would be incumbent upon the First Respondent to recover the emoluments that had been paid to the Fourth Respondent during the period that she had unlawfully held that post and to grant the same to the Petitioner, who had been illegitimately deprived of that benefit. However, the First Respondent has rejected that claim of the Petitioner in the impugned order on the specious plea that she had not actually held the post till the date on which she assumed charge of the same. Inasmuch as the Petitioner cannot be faulted for the time taken in the legal proceedings to set aside the election of the Fourth Respondent, she cannot be deprived of receiving the said benefit during that period and the impugned order, which cannot be sustained, is quashed and the First Respondent has to make payment of the honorarium of Rs.1,000.00 per month for the period of 46 months aggregating to Rs.46,000.00 by 31/12/2022 to her under written acknowledgment. However, the claim made by the Petitioner for sitting fees and traveling allowance during the said period under G.O. Ms. No. 54, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department (PR4) Department dtd. 29/6/2012 has to be declined as she had not performed those functions and the Fourth Respondent has already been paid for the same applying the principle of quantum meruit for the work done by her. If the Fourth Respondent, after affording full opportunity of personal hearing in consonance with the principles of natural justice, fails to reimburse the said sum of Rs.46,000.00 received towards honorarium, the First Respondent shall recover the said amount from her by appropriate legal proceedings in accordance with law.