Judgment · High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 01.07.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPANW.P.No.1166 of 2025andW.M.P.Nos.1408, 1409 and 1411 of 2025M.Arumugam... Petitioner Vs.

The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Housing), Alagesan Nagar, Chengalpattu, Chengalpattu District.

The Administrator, Ambattur – Venkatapuram Cooperative Building Society Ltd., J.J.9769, Lakshmi Apartments, Old Bank of Baroda Street, Ambattur, Chennai – 600 053.... RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings No.Nil, dated 15.07.2024 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service along with all attendant benefits and other monetary benefits to the petitioner. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis For Petitioner: Mr.C.PrakasamFor Respondents: Mr.V.Umakanth, Government Advocate (for R1) Mr.V.Manoharan (for R2)*****

O R D E RThis Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 15.07.2024 passed by the second respondent.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, though the petitioner challenging his suspension ordered on 15.07.2024, he restricts his claim to the extent of his subsistence allowance, as the impugned order has reference that the petitioner is not eligible for subsistence allowance as per the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), which is contrary to the statute, and that such denial would affect his right to livelihood.

The learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that the by-laws do not provide for the payment of subsistence allowance. Therefore, the second respondent submitted that the during suspension period, the petitioner is not entitled to the subsistence allowance. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

The above statement is contrary to the spirit of the Act regarding payment of subsistence allowance. However, according to Section 3(2) of the Act, an employee shall not be entitled to receive any subsistence allowance if he accepts any other employment during the period of his suspension. It is also relevant to refer that the clause regarding denial of subsistence allowance is contrary to the spirit of the Act.5. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would invite the attention of this Court to his representations dated 13.04.2024 and 18.04.2024 to the first respondent, claiming subsistence allowance, which have not been disposed of by the first respondent.6. In view of the same, without going into the merits of this Writ Petition, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representations dated 13.04.2024 and 18.04.2024, and pass orders on its own merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis