logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 7347 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : WP Nos. 18942 of 2023 & 29019 of 2024 & WMP Nos. 18183 & 18185 of 2023
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C. KUMARAPPAN
Parties : U. Lakshmanaswamy, Chennai Versus The Registrar of Co-operative Society, Chennai & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: L.P. Shanmugasundaram, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, A. Suganya for Additional Government Pleader, R2 & R3, Dr.S. Surya, Advocates.
Date of Judgment : 29-09-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: in WP No.18942 of 2023: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.001/ See. Aa dated 16.06.2023 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to disburse the 100% subsistence allowance together with arrears to the petitioner within the stipulated time.

WP No.29019 of 2024: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the remaining subsistence allowance period from July 2023 to July 2024 with interest of 14% by considering the petitioner representation 31.07.2024.)

Common Order:

1. WP No.18942 of 2023 has been filed seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records relating to the order dated 16.06.2023 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents to disburse the 100% subsistence allowance together with arrears to the petitioner.

2. WP No.29019 of 2024 has been filed seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the remaining subsistence allowance period from July 2023 to July 2024 with interest of 14% by considering the petitioner’s representation dated 31.07.2024.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the petitioner and the petitioner was suspended from service, but no subsistence allowance was granted to the petitioner. Challenging the disciplinary proceedings and for direction to the respondents to pay subsistence allowance, the petitioner filed WP No.18942 of 2023. This Court by the order dated 27.06.2023 granted an order of interim injunction and restrained the third respondent from proceeding with the domestic enquiry. Subsequent to the said order, the respondents settled subsistence allowance upto June, 2023. After the above period, since the respondents did not pay the subsistence allowance, the petitioner filed WP No.29019 of 2024.

4. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that the petitioner retired on 31.07.2024. It is also the contention of the learned counsel that as per the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.17600 of 2020 dated 10.07.2024, since the petitioner being the Secretary, he would not come within the definition of ‘employee’ as per Section 2 (a) of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act. Hence she would contend that the petitioner is not entitled for subsistence allowance.

5. Reiterating the above submission, the learned Additional Government Pleader would invite the attention of this Court in respect of the Bye Laws and would contend that in respect of Secretary, it is for the Society, at its discretion, either to sanction subsistence allowance or not.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.

7. While looking into either side submissions, what is to be considered is whether the petitioner being the Secretary is entitled for subsistence allowance. The above issue is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited [(1999) 3 SCC 679], clearly held that any disciplinary proceedings without paying subsistence allowance is nothing but violation of principles of natural justice.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that the non payment of subsistence allowance would affect the right to life of the petitioner and further in similar circumstances the Hon’ble Division Bench in W.A.No.1569 of 2012 [The Special Officer, D.K.81 Chennasandiram Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. Vs. P.Periyannan and another] dated 10.02.2015 and the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.21238 of 2022 [The Management P.E.65, Modakkurichi Circle Teachers and Public Servants Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society Limited, Represented by its Administrator Vs. The Joint Commissioner of Labour, Controlling Authority appointed under the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act and another] dated 03.07.2025, which was later on confirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in W.A.No.3036 of 2025 [The Management P.E.65, Modakkurichi Circle Teachers and Public Servants Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society Limited, Represented by its Administrator Vs. The Joint Commissioner of Labour, Controlling Authority appointed under the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act and another] dated 22.10.2025 has granted subsistence allowance.

9. Though the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent relied upon the learned Single Judge judgment in G.Gunasekaran case cited supra, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paul Anthony’s case and the Hon’ble Division Bench in C.Periyasamy’s case and P.Periyannan’s case, this Court is of the firm view that the person occupying the post of Secretary is entitled to have subsistence allowance.

10. In the case in hand, the subsistence allowance has already been paid upto June, 2023. In the meanwhile, the petitioner retired on 31.07.2024. In view of the above detailed discussion, this Court would direct the second respondent to settle the subsistence allowance of the petitioner from July, 2023 to 31.07.2024, being the date of superannuation of the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

11. Furthermore, though the petitioner has challenged the disciplinary proceedings now that the subsistence allowance has been paid, the petitioner is directed to cooperate for the early disposal of the disciplinary proceedings with the respondent. The respondent is directed to commence domestic enquiry, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the third respondent is directed to conclude the domestic enquiry, within a period of four months thereafter.

12. With the above directions, both the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal