IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05-01-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI K.Chandrasekaran Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Rep by its Managing Director, Salem Limit, Salem-636 007 2.Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Rep by its Assistant Manager (Personal)

Salem Limit, Salem-636 007 Respondent(s)

PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 2nd Respondent in Ku. Na. E8 / TNSTC (Salem) / 20213 dated 16.11.2023, and action of the respondents in recovering Rs.1,67,200/- from the petitioner towards monetary value equivalent to non-implemented punishment of increment cuts, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith pay the petitioner the recovered amount of Rs.1,67,200/- with 12 percentage interest payable form

30.11.2023 to till the date of which the above amount is settled to him.

For Petitioner(s): N.Desinghu For Respondent: Mr.K.Raja, Standing Counsel

ORDER

Mr.K.Raja, learned Standing Counsel takes notice on behalf of the respondents.

2.By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

3.This writ petition has been filed, challenging the impugned recovery order of the 2^nd respondent dated 16.11.2023, and seeking a direction to the respondents to forthwith pay the petitioner, the recovered amount of Rs.1,67,200/- with 12% interest payable from 30.11.2023 to till date on which the above amount is settled to him.

4.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as a Driver in the respondent Transport Corporation on 01.07.1989 and was regularised on 01.08.1990. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.11.2023, and at the time of retirement, he was serving as Selection Grade Driver at Erumapalaiyam-1. Prior to his retirement, the 2^nd respondent passed the impugned order dated 16.11.2023, demanding a sum of Rs.1,67,200/- for unimplemented punishments to be recovered from his terminal benefits, without any prior notice or specific charges. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the respondent claimed that a punishment was imposed on the petitioner, the same was not implemented by the respondent Corporation prior to his retirement. At the verge of retirement, the respondent Corporation sought to implement the punishment by recovering a sum of Rs.1,67,200/- which is not certain and arbitrary. It is the duty of the respondents to implement any punishment promptly once it is imposed. Failing to do so and leaving the petitioner to face consequence at the verge of retirement is impermissible one. A similar issue was considered by this Court in W.P No.2998 of 2017, and by its order dated 13.03.2024, the writ petition was allowed. Accordingly he prayed for a similar order in the present writ petition.

6.Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that though the petitioner retired on 30.11.2023, the impugned order was passed 16.11.2023 i.e., prior to his retirement. The petitioner, however, filed the present writ petition after a delay of two years, which renders the claim uncertain and not maintainable.

7.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

8.The fact of the case are not in dispute. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed as a Driver in the year 1989 and retired on 30.11.2023 as a Selection Grade Driver. Prior to his retirement, the present impugned order was passed on 16.11.2023 to implement the unimplemented punishment and directed recovery of Rs.1,67,200/-. A similar issue was taken up for consideration before this Court in W.P No.2998 of 2017, in which, by its order dated 13.03.2024, it was held as follows:

10. A learned Single Judge of this Court by following the