(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue writ of mandamus, praying to direct the 1st respondent to refund the amount of Rs.96,390/- with interest recovered from the salary of the Petitioner by the 3rd respondent, in the light of the order passed in W.P. No.5002 of 1999 dated 13.09.2006 and in W.P. No.12113 of 2008 dated 27.02.2012.)

The present writ petition has been filed seeking refund of the amount of Rs.96,390/- with interest recovered from the salary of the petitioner in the light of the order passed in W.P.No.5002 of 1999 dated 13.09.2006.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was initially appointed in the Tamil Nadu Steels Limited on 10.01.1979 and as per the VRS scheme, he was relieved on 31.07.1998 and he was also given VRS compensation to the tune of Rs.2,52,331/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the Government of Tamil Nadu has passed a G.O in G.O.Ms.No. 524 dated 21.08.1998, so as to absorb those who have already given VRS from the Tamil Nadu Steels Limited, he was absorbed. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that while issuing the said G.O., they have also directed to recover the VRS compensation which had already been paid to the employees under easy instalments. In such view of the above order, the respondents started collecting a sum of Rs.1530/- per month and totally, they have collected a sum of Rs.96,390/- from the petitioner as per the instruction given in G.O.Ms.No.524 dated 21.08.1998. The learned counsel submitted that in the meanwhile, the above G.O. was challenged by their Trade Union and this Court, by order dated 13.09.2006, has set aside the said directions and thereafter, the respondents did not collect the remaining amount. The above order was also subsequently confirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.875 of 2019, dated 14.08.2023. In view of the above subsequent developments, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to refund whatever amount collected from the petitioner, namely Rs.96,390/-.

3. The said contention was totally objected by learned Government Advocate for the 1st respondent and submitted that if the petitioner was given absorption as well as VRS compensation, it is nothing but a twin benefit, which was not at all intended by the Government. It is also his contention that though the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that petitioner initially served for Tamil Nadu Steels Limited and subsequently, he was absorbed in a different Department, the fact remains that both being a Public Sector Undertaking, the Government is an ultimate authority. Therefore, mere change of Department will in no way give any benefit to the petitioner as he would only be construed as an employee of the Public Sector Undertaking. By relying the same, the learned Government Advocate justified the recovery of amount from the petitioner and the same need not be refunded to the petitioner. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record.

5. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the portion of G.O. in which a direction given to the concerned department to deduct from easy monthly instalments from concerned employees though subsequently quashed, a sum of Rs.96,390/- was recovered from this petitioner. On perusal of the W.P.No.5002 of 1999 dated 13.09.2006, such portion of the order was set aside. But consciously, there are no direction to refund the amount. The above order was subsequently confirmed in Writ Appeal No.875 of 2019 dated 14.08.2023.

6. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would project by virtue of the order he is entitled to have a refund, on perusal of the order, this Court could not find any grounds for such refund. Furthermore, there was a huge delay from the date of recovery and also from the date of passing of the order in W.P.No.5002 of 1999. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been continuously made request with the department. However, due to the pendency of the writ appeal, they did not respond to the petitioner. Therefore, there is no delay on his part.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court in respect of reply given under RTI Act, 2005 on 12.04.2024, wherein the Appellate Authority, Industries, Investment Promotion and Commerce (MIF.2) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-09, had stated that since refund of the recovery amount involves financial commitment, the same is under examination of the Government. In such view of the stand taken by the respondent, this Court is of the firm view that instead of adjudicating the matter on merits, would like to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to take a decision in respect of refund of the amount to the petitioner in pursuance of the order passed in Writ Appeal No.875 of 2019 dated 14.08.2023 according to its own merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

8. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.