Madras High Court
WA/1886/2026 of The Managing Director Vs Mathiazagan on 1 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on
01.09.2026
Pronounced on
09.09.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN
WA No. 1886 of 2026 and
CMP No. 16884 of 2026
The Managing Director
State Express Transport Corporation,
Pallavan Salai,
Chennai-600 002.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
Mathiazagan
S/o. Achilingam,
354, Mahesh Nagar, Water Tank road,
Thalavapalayam,
Mariamman Koil-Post,
Papanasam Taluk,
Thanjavur-613501.
..Respondent(s)
Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to setting aside the order dated 04.03.2024 passed in W.P.No. 37040 of 2016.
For Appellant :
Mr.Santhosa Kumar
Standing Counsel
For Respondent(s):
Mr.V.Ashokan
For M/S.V.S.Jagadeesan
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
(Krishnaswamy Govindarajan,J.) The unsuccessful respondent viz., the State Transport Corporation is the appellant before this Court.
2. The writ petition was filed by the respondent herein with a prayer for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the appellant to dispose of the representation dated and to disburse the retirement benefits without recovery.
3. It is the case of the respondent herein / writ petitioner that he was working as an Assistant and subsequently as Conductor in the appellant Corporation and his service was regularised on 01.09.1978. On 22.09.2003, the petitioner was conducting duty in Route No.323 from Thanjavur and received ticket books at about 22.05 hours. Due to non-availability of vehicle, the petitioner was waiting in the depot and the ticket book was found missing. He immediately reported the missing of ticket book to the higher officials. Eventually, an enquiry was conducted and a police complaint was also lodged and final report was filed. The police informed that the ticket book was not traceable. The petitioner retired from service on 31.08.2014. At the time of retirement, the appellant Corporation ordered recovery of a sum of Rs.38,845/- in respect of valuation of the missing ticket book from the retirement benefits.
4. The appellant Corporation has not filed any counter in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge.
5. The learned Single Judge, in para 6, relying on Clause 12(3) Settlement dated 28.09.2005, came to the conclusion that in respect of missing ticket books, recovery cannot be made if police final report states that ticket book is not traceable, and allowed the writ petition directing the appellant not to recover the amount and to disburse the retirement benefits. Challenging the said order, the Transport Corporation filed the present writ appeal.
6. Heard the counsel for the appellant Corporation and the learned counsel for the respondent.
7. It is an admitted fact that the appellant Corporation, by its proceedings dated 01.07.2009, had passed an order of recovery of Rs.38,845/- towards cost of missing ticket book and the same was communicated to the respondent herein well before his retirement. The said communication / order dated 01.07.2009
was never challenged by the respondent / writ petitioner before any Court of law. The order dated 01.07.2009 has attained finality. However, without challenging the order of recovery dated 01.07.2009, the respondent filed a simple writ petition for Mandamus for disposal of his representation dated 30.07.2016 and for disbursement of retirement benefits. The writ petitioner, after suffering an order of recovery in 2009, has knocked the doors of the Court once again in 2016 seeking Mandamus for disposal of representation, which is nothing but an attempt to revive a stale claim which had already attained finality. The above said vital aspect was not considered by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has exceeded the scope of the writ petition. When the order dated 01.07.2009 imposing recovery was not under challenge in the writ petition, the learned Single Judge ought not to have issued a direction to the appellant not to recover the money. A writ of mandamus cannot be issued to circumvent a validly passed recovery order which has become final. The respondent / writ petitioner is not entitled to re-agitate the issue by filing a fresh writ petition for mandamus. The cause of action, if any, arose in 2009 itself. Further, the reliance placed on 12(3) Settlement dated 28.09.2005 is misplaced. The settlement deals with procedure for missing ticket books, but it does not absolve the liability of the conductor when ticket book entrusted to him is lost due to his negligence. The police final report regarding the ticket book is not traceable does not wipe out the financial loss to the Corporation.
8. In view of the above, we are inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.
9. In the result, this Writ Appeal is allowed; The order dated 04.03.2024 made in W.P.No.37040 of 2016 is set aside; Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 09-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No rli
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. rli WA No. 1886 of 2026 09-09-2026