BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON: 20.11.2025

PRONOUNCED ON: .12.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

AND

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

W.A.(MD)No.1428 of 2022

A.Sivakumar

...Appellant

Vs.

1. The Management,

M/s.D.D.115, Palani Co-operative Primary

Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Limited,

Palani,

Dindigul District-624 601.

2. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour

Authority under the Tamil Nadu

Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act,

(Deputy Commissioner of Labour)

Collectorate Complex, Dindigul-624 004.

...Respondents

PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order passed in W.P.(MD) No.13360 of 2022 dated 16.09.2022 allow

the Writ Appeal.

For Appellant : Mr.R.Saravanan For Respondents : Mr.S.Seenivasagam for R1 Mr.M.Sarangan, Additional Government Pleader for R2 *****

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

The present Writ Appeal is arising against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(MD).No.13360 of 2022 by and in which the order passed by the Authority under the “Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981” [hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”] to pay the subsistence allowance, was set aside.

2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present Writ Appeal is that, the appellant was an employee in the first respondent Society. In pursuance of the Section 81 enquiry under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, the appellant was suspended on 16.04.2019. However, against the Section 81 enquiry report, the petitioner preferred a writ petition in WP(MD).No.10908 of 2019, wherein the learned Single Judge has granted stay on 29.04.2019. Since there was a stay, the first respondent did not pay subsistence allowance from the date of stay order viz., 29.04.2019 and ultimate dismissal of the writ petition on 12.08.2020. When the appellant preferred a petition before the competent authority/ 2^nd respondent, the competent authority ordered to pay the subsistence allowance from 29.04.2019 to 12.08.2020. Aggrieved with the same, the Management/ first respondent preferred the writ petition and the Writ Court was of the view that the order of stay obtained by the appellant against the Section 81 enquiry would disentitle the appellant to get subsistence allowance, thereby, the learned Single Judge set aside the order of the competent authority. Aggrieved with the same, the present Writ Appeal has been filed.

3. Heard Mr.R.Saravanan, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.S.Seenivasagam, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr.M.Sarangan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that the order of stay against Section 81 enquiry will have no implication in the continuance of payment of subsistence allowance. He would further submit that, even for argument sake, the stay has got some implications in proceeding of the domestic enquiry, the first respondent could have very well revoked the suspension and reinstated the appellant. The learned counsel would further submit that, without there being any legal basis, the learned Single Judge has denied the subsistence allowance for the stay period, which is contrary to law.

Hence, prayed to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.

5. Per contra, the said contention was stoutly objected by the learned counsel for the first respondent, and would contend that in view of the order of the stay, they were not able to proceed with the enquiry. He would further submit that, having stalled the domestic enquiry, the appellant has no legal right to have subsistence allowance. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that having obtained the order of stay the appellant cannot unlawfully enrich himself in receiving the subsistence allowance without there being any justifiable reason and would contend that there were no fault on the par