M. JEHAJOTHY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the sum of Rs.3,55,006.00 being D.A. Arears the sum of Rs.1 71 493.00 being wrongfully deducted D.A. the sum of Rs.27 168.00 H.R.A. arrears altogether a sum of Rs.5,53,667.00 (Five lakhs fifty three thousands six hundred and sixty seven rupees only) in the light of the petitioners representation dtd. 8/7/2021 sent to the 4th respondent and the petitioners further representation dtd. 3/8/2021 sent to the 1st respondent.

(2.) The petitioner was working as Block Development Officer at Alathur Panchayat Union, Perambalur District and he reached superannuation on 31/12/1996. However, on that date he was placed under suspension and he was not permitted to retire. Thereafter, by order dtd. 4/9/2004 he was removed from service, as against which the petitioner filed a writ petition and got succeeded in W.P.No.28345 of 2007, pursuant to which the dismissal order or removal order made against the petitioner has been revoked. In this context, it is the grievance of the petitioner that during the period from 2004 to 2015 for 11 years when the subsistence allowance was paid to the petitioner, it was only the subsistence allowance that was calculated and paid and not the dearness allowance. According to the petitioner, at that time the stand taken by the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled to get corresponding dearness allowance and therefore on that pretext, according to the petitioner a sum of Rs.3,55,006.00 under the category of dearness allowance arrears and a sum of Rs.1,71,493.00 being the wrongfully deducted dearness allowance also had not been paid or withheld by the respondents. Therefore, in order to get that amount, the petitioner has given a representation on 8/7/2021 and the said representation since not been considered, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) Heard Mr.Yudhish Padman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. Whether the petitioner would be entitled to get back the said amounts of Rs.3,55,006.00 under the category of dearness allowance arrears and a sum of Rs.1,71,493.00 being the wrongfully deducted dearness allowance or both is matter to be decided by the respondents. Therefore, in this context, this Court feels that a direction can be given to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dtd. 8/7/2021 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a time frame that may be stipulated to meet the ends of justice.