Allowed

M.Sathiyavijayan v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC10 Apr 2014WP/18989/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to quash an order denying regularisation due to alleged employment gap and short service. Court held petitioner completed 10 years continuous service and quashed the order excluding him, directing regularisation like 174 others within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the portion of G.O.Ms.No.242 dated 10.12.2009 denying regularisation; directed respondents to regularise petitioner's service within three weeks.

M.Sathiyavijayan Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 10.04.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA

¶5

W.P.No.18989 of 2010

¶6

M.Sathiyavijayan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration and
Water Supply Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 9.
2.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat,
Vellore District,
Vellore.
3.The District Collector,
Vellore District,
Vellore.
4.Odugathur Town Panchayat,
Rep. by the Executive Officer,
Odugathur,
North Arcot District. ... Respondents

¶7

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of certiorarified mandamus as stated therein.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Singaravelan For R1 to R3 : Mr.S.V.Duraisolaimalai, AGP For R4 : Ms.E.Ranganayaki

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order passed by the first respondent / the Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Chennai, vide G.O.Ms.No.242, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 10.12.2009, in respect of petitioner alone, as unconstitutional and ultravires, by calling for the records connected thereto and consequently, to direct the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner with all the monetary and service benefits with effect from the date of promotion given to his juniors.

¶12

Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.

¶13

The petitioner was appointed to the post of NMR Watchman by the Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, temporarily on 04.03.1991. Since the scheme expired on 07.10.1993, he was transferred to the Scheme at Odugathur Town Panchayat, whereupon, he has been serving in the said post till now. Unfortunately, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner on 03.02.2000, in connection with the suicidal death of his wife on 24.03.1995. Subsequent to the registration of criminal case, he was suspended from service. He was also acquitted from the criminal case in S.C.No.216 of 2002 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kudiyathum, Vellore District, on 28.07.2003. Since he was not paid with subsistence allowance, he filed a petition under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Payment of the Subsistence Allowance Act, 1980, whereby, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour allowed his claim in P.U.No.48/2004, dated 15.12.2004, directing the Executive Officer of the Town Panchayat, Odugathur Post, to pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner. However, the said order has not been complied with, but, he was also issued with posting order dated 24.11.2005, by the Assistant Director of Town Panchayat.

¶14

At this juncture, the only grievance of the petitioner is that he was not considered for regularisation, as done in the case of 174 similarly situated persons, by a Government order in G.O.Ms.No.242, dated 10.12.2009, on the ground that he was out of employment from 01.01.2003 to 31.12.2005. According to the petitioner, the Executive Officer of the Town Panchayat had not allowed him to work and that only the Assistant Director of Town Panchyat had given the posting order on 01.12.2005.

¶15

When the matter was taken up, learned counsel for petitioner has also produced a copy of the proceedings dated 10.09.2013 of the Executive Officer, Odugathur, addressed to the Assistant Director of Town Panchayats, wherein the Executive Officer

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

has stated that only due to the pendency of the present writ petition, he was unable to send a proposal for regularisation of the petitioner's service.

¶18

Though no counter affidavit has been filed, learned counsel for the fourth respondent stated that since the petitioner has not put in 10 years of continues service as on 31.10.2008, as per G.O.Ms.No.242, dated 10.12.2009, the respondents have not considered the case of the respondents for regularisation.

¶19

A mere perusal of the Government Order passed in G.O.Ms.No.242, dated 10.12.2009, depicts that a person, who has rendered 10 years of regular service as on 31.10.2008, shall be regularised. Applying the said G.O., the respondents have also regularised the services of 174 similarly placed persons as that of the petitioner. In the case of the petitioner, though he was suspended orally in the year 2003, in connection with the suicidal death of his wife on 24.03.1995, he was subsequently given posting order on 01.12.2005 by the Assistant Director of Town Panchayat, upon his acquittal in a criminal case on 28.07.2003. Therefore, when the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.242, dated 10.12.2009, stipulates minimum 10 years of regular service on daily wage basis for regularisation, the petitioner has also admittedly completed more than 10 years of continuous service ie. from 04.03.1991 (the date of appointment) till the year 2003 (year of suspension), even after exclusion of suspension period i.e. from 2003 to 01.12.2005. Hence, I do not find any justification in the approach of the respondents for denying regularisation of service to the petitioner. Accordingly, only that portion of the G.O. passed by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.242, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 10.12.2009, denying regularisation to the petitioner due to the pendency of this writ petition alone is quashed. Consequently, the respondents are directed to regularise the services of the petitioner, as done to 174 similarly placed persons, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

In fine, the writ petition stands allowed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-II) Dated: 22.05.2014

¶21

//True Copy//

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

rkm

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶25

¶26

1.The Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration and
Water Supply Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 9.
2.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat,
Vellore District,
Vellore.
3.The District Collector,
Vellore District,
Vellore.
4. The Executive Officer,
Odugathur Town Panchayat,
Odugathur,
North Arcot District.
1 cc to M/s.M. Srividya, adocate, sr. 17518
1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr. 17766
1 cc to Ms.E. Ranga Nayagi, Advocate, Sr. 17620
W.P.No.18989 of 2010
SK (CO)
kk 22/5

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M.Sathiyavijayan v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Sathiyavijayan v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjeev Ramiakhan Mishra, Vs the Commandant

R.Venkatesan, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Dr.P.Kamalakannan Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

Muthuswamy Vs the Collector

Vijayan, Vs the District Collector

Thangadurai, Vs the District Collector