Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The writ petition is allowed with the above direction
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Mr.M.Vaidyanathan, learned counsel appearing for the 1strespondent/Tamil Nadu Electricity Board would contend that theimpugned order has been passed pursuant to the Board's Memorandumdated 27.08.2008 and 10.02.2009, wherein, instructions have beenissued to discontinue the payment of advance incentive increments tothe employees who have already been…
- Para 77. It is not in dispute that the petitioner joined the serviceof the Board with B.Sc. (Maths) qualification and thereafter, hequalified in B.Com. Degree course for one year. The said degree hasalso been entered into the Service Register of the petitioner andthereafter incentive increment has…
- Para 99. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.02.2009 passed bythe 2nd respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted to the 2ndrespondent to proceed further by issuing a fresh notice to thepetitioner after giving an opportunity of hearing to him, and passappropriate orders on merits…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 11.03.2010CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALANW.P.No.3638 of 2009P.C.Vijayaragavan... Petitionervs.
The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, represented by the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
The Chief Internal Audit Officer, Board Office, Audit Branch,N.P.K.K.R.R. Malligai I Floor,144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.... RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call forthe records on the file of the 2nd respondent in connection with theorder passed by him in Memo No.05532/172/F.1/F.12-2009-12 dated19.02.2009 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.V.S.JegadeesanFor Respondents: Mr.M.Vaidyanathan, for R1 Mrs. Sneha, for R2 Government AdvocateO R D E RChallenging the order dated 19.02.2009 passed by the 2ndrespondent in Memo No.05532/172/F.1/F.12-2009-12, this writ petitionis filed. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petitionare, as under: (i)The petitioner was selected for appointment to the post of Assessor by direct recruitment on merits and he joined service on05.07.1985 with B.Sc.
(Maths) qualification. He had appeared forinternal selection for appointment to the post of Auditor and he https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ joined service in the said post in 1998. He was promoted to the postof Assistant Audit Officer/Audit party and he joined service on19.05.2008 as he has got B.Com. degree qualification from AnnamalaiUniversity by way of Distance Education mode after undergoing B.Comdegree course for one year. The Distance Education mode of AnnamalaiUniversity had announced that a candidate with one degreequalification could get degree of B.Com. by undergoing B.Com coursefor only one year. According to the petitioner, he joined the abovecourse with the permission of the department and successfullycompleted the same on 29.12.2005. The above degree has been enteredin his Service Register also and on the basis of the said degree, thepetitioner was given promotion to the post of Assistant AuditOfficer/Audit party with incentive from 30.12.2005.(ii)While so, the 2nd respondent passed an order cancelling thegrant of incentive in favour of the petitioner referring to certainorders of the Board, the copies of which are not given to him.
Asper the order, the Board has decided to cancel the incentive given tothe candidates of one year B.Com. Degree course and hence, it iscancelled. It is further stated in the said order that the paymentmade to the petitioner already towards incentive increment for theperiod from 27.08.2008 to 31.01.2009 will be recovered and the samewill be intimated to the petitioner later. Aggrieved by the saidorder, the petitioner is before this court.
Heard Mr.V.S.Jagadeesan, learned counsel for thepetitioner, Mr.M.Vaidyanathan, learned counsel appearing for the 1strespondent and Mrs. Sneha, learned Government Advocate for the 2ndrespondent.
The foremost and only question raised by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by the 2ndrespondent is without notice and without affording an opportunity ofhearing to the petitioner and therefore, the order impugned in thiswrit petition is liable to be set aside.
Mr.M.Vaidyanathan, learned counsel appearing for the 1strespondent/Tamil Nadu Electricity Board would contend that theimpugned order has been passed pursuant to the Board's Memorandumdated 27.08.2008 and 10.02.2009, wherein, instructions have beenissued to discontinue the payment of advance incentive increments tothe employees who have already been sanctioned for having passed oneyear B.Com. degree course under Distance Education mode (conducted bythe Annamalai University). Accordingly, the impugned order has beenpassed discontinuing the payment of advance incentive incrementalready sanctioned to the petitioner and there is no infirmity in thesaid order. 6. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on either https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ side and perused the materials available on record.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner joined the serviceof the Board with B.Sc. (Maths) qualification and thereafter, hequalified in B.Com. Degree course for one year. The said degree hasalso been entered into the Service Register of the petitioner andthereafter incentive increment has been granted to him. However, the2nd respondent has taken a decision that a person who had passed oneyear B.Com. degree course is not eligible to be given an incentiveincrement and accordingly, an order has been passed.
It is seen that the impugned order based on the Board'sMemorandum dated 27.08.2008 and 10.02.2009 was neither communicatednor served on the petitioner and it appears that the petitioner wasnot even given an opportunity of hearing. In that view of thematter, as the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent is withoutnotice to the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing was given tohim, the same cannot be sustained. The cardinal principle is thatwhen an order is passed without notice to the petitioner and withoutan opportunity of hearing to him, then it is against the principlesof natural justice and there is legal infirmity in it.
Operative part
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.02.2009 passed bythe 2nd respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted to the 2ndrespondent to proceed further by issuing a fresh notice to thepetitioner after giving an opportunity of hearing to him, and passappropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within aperiod of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of thisorder. The writ petition is allowed with the above direction. Nocosts. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar/True Copy/Sub Assistant Registrarabe https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To :1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.2.The Chief Internal Audit Officer, Board Office, Audit Branch,N.P.K.K.R.R. Malligai I Floor,144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.+ One CC to Mr.M.Vaidyanathan, Advocate Sr.16646 W.P.No.3638 of 2009NG(CO)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition is allowed with the above direction
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.