Management cannot implement punitive orders post-retirement if unauthorized by Standing Orders.

O R D E R

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the letter of the third respondent in Ku.No.E8/3150/TNSTC (Salem)/2025 dated

22.09.2025 and quash the same.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Trainee Driver vide proceedings of the General Manager, Anna Transport Corporation, Salem on 13.09.1994 and thereafter his services were regularized. The petitioner is the active member of All Employees Union, Salem Region, due to which, the petitioner was denied promotion. The petitioner is about to attain the age of superannuation on 30.06.2026. Whileso, the third respondent issued the impugned letter directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.4,80,800/- to recover unimplemented orders of punishment of postponement of increment.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition is no longer res integra and it has already been decided by this Court in the case of R.Gopal Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Rep. By its Managing Director, Salem and another [W.P.No.2998 of

2017 dated 13.03.2024]

4.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the decision relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is not applicable to the present case on hand since the petitioner therein is a retired employee and the petitioner herein has not yet retired from service and further submitted that when a person is in service, the punishment can be implemented prior to retirement, if not already implemented. 5.Heard the arguments advanced on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6.The petitioner entered the service of the respondent in the year 1994 and thereafter his services were regularized. The third respondent issued the impugned letter directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.4,80,800/- to recover unimplemented orders of punishment of postponement of increment. However, the impugned letter did not reveal that when the punishment of postponement of increment was imposed and that was the amount imposed. Without such details, the third respondent has issued the omnibus impugned letter, which is not sustainable.

7.It is useful to extract hereunder the relevant portion of the order of this Court in the case of R.Gopal Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Rep. By its Managing Director, Salem and another [W.P.No.2998 of 2017 dated 13.03.2024]

“10. A learned Single Judge of this Court by following the judgment of the Division Bench of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in the case of State Transport Corporation rep. By Managing Director Vs. Senthil and another dated 15.06.2021 allowed the writ petition. The relevant paragraphs of the Division Bench Judgment are extract hereunder.

7. The above condition states that the increment postponement orders which could not be implemented prior to the superannuation of the employee can be implemented, but only in accordance with the Common Service Rules and the Standing Orders which are applicable to the organization. This question was considered in the case of J.Arumugam (supra), as first among the several issues and it was held that there is no provision in the Certified Standing Orders enabling the Management to pass orders of recovery as passed in the instant case. In fact, the Court held that the Common Service Rules are not applicable to the workmen and there is no Standing Order framed by the Management and only Certified Standing Orders are in vogue and the Certified Standing Orders do not provide for any such recovery. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows:

“5. Before deciding the merits of the case, firstly, it h