Madras High Court
A.Ramalingam vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 11 April, 2018
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.04.2018 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR W.P.(MD) No.5855 of 2010 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 and 2 of 2010 A.Ramalingam ... Petitioner -vs- 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai. 2.The Director of Collegiate Education, DPI Compound, Chennai-6. 3.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, DPI Compound, Chennai-6. 4.The Principal, Mannar Duraisingam Government Arts College, Sivagangai. 5.The Bursar, Mannar Duraisingam Government Arts College, Sivagangai. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in the impugned order dated 12.03.2010 on the file of the respondent No.4 in N.Dis.257/E/09-10 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to pay the salary for the month of February to the petitioner with all consequential benefits. !For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy ^For Respondents : Mrs.S.Srimathy Special Government Pleader :ORDER
The prayer sought for in this Writ Petition is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in the impugned order dated 12.03.2010 on the file of the respondent No.4 in N.Dis.257/E/09-10 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to pay the salary for the month of February to the petitioner with all consequential benefits.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3.The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 12.03.2010, passed by the fourth respondent, wherein, the fourth respondent had stated that as per the existing orders, only Rs.75,000/- is allowed under Section 80 DD of the Income Tax Act to the individual and therefore, if at all of the petitioner is taking the stand that Rs.75,000/- was enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 80 DD of the said Act for deduction, the necessary proof and documents / IT statement, if any with the proof of expenditure shall be submitted to the fourth respondent and on receipt of the same from the petitioner, the salary bill of the petitioner for the concerned month shall be presented for payment. Only aggrieved with the said decision issued by the respondents, the petitioner approached this Court.
4.When a specific query was asked, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the above documents were sought for from the petitioner, which admittedly, the petitioner have not so far submitted and the fourth respondent has not deducted any amount towards income tax and paid it to the Income Tax Department. If at all the petitioner is ready and willing to make the submission of the documents sought for and based on which, whatever salary is entitled to, he can get back from the concerned authority.
5.However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the stand taken by the fourth respondent that the ceiling was only Rs.75,000/- under Section 80DD of the said Act was not correct for the particular period. The same has been enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- for the relevant period. Therefore, the petitioner shall entitle to get back more amount of salary. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks some interpretation of the relevant Section of the Income Tax rule made thereunder.
6.Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides.
7.At the outset, this Court feels that such an interpretation on the provisions of Income Tax made thereunder is not necessary at this juncture for the facts or issue in this Writ Petition. Moreover, as per the impugned order dated 12.03.2010, the fourth respondent only directed the petitioner to produce the relevant documents in support of his contention that enhancement up to Rs.1,00,000 under Section 80DD of the said Act, was more for the relevant period. If at all the petitioner is having relevant documents to substantiate his contention that he would be entitled for the deduction upto Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 80DD of the said Act, it is open to the petitioner to produce the same, instead, the petitioner has been fighting with the authorities i.e., the respondent herein challenging the order dated 12.03.2010.
8.Therefore, this Court feels that the petitioner can very well submit those documents sought for by the fourth respondent through the impugned order and based on which, the fourth respondent can act upon.
9.In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:
?That the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, shall submit the relevant documents, as has been sought for in the impugned order dated 12.03.2010 by the fourth respondent and on receipt of such documents from the petitioner including any submission/explanation with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner for lower deduction, the fourth respondent shall consider the same and based on which, necessary pay bill for the salary to the relevant period of the petitioner shall be presented before the disbursement authority within a period of two weeks thereafter.
10.With these directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To
1.The Secretary, The Government of Tamil Nadu, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The Director of Collegiate Education, DPI Compound, Chennai-6.
3.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, DPI Compound, Chennai-6.
4.The Principal, Mannar Duraisingam Government Arts College, Sivagangai.
5.The Bursar, Mannar Duraisingam Government Arts College, Sivagangai.
.