Allowed

Tmt.Selvi v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC10 Sept 2014WP/24592/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking quashing of an impugned order that had regularized the petitioner's services late. The court held the petition was not barred by laches and directed the third respondent to regularize services from the date of three-year completion and pay arrears.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the impugned order dated 09.03.2006; direction to regularize service from the date of three-year completion and pay monetary arrears within 12 weeks.

Tmt.Selvi Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 10.09.2014

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN

¶5

Writ Petition No.24592 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶6

Tmt.Selvi ..Petitioner vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. 3.The Commissioner, Cuddalore Municipality, Cuddalore. .. Respondents

¶7

Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for all the relevant records pertaining to the order passed by the third respondent vide proceedings Na.Ka.No.1015-2006-H1 dated 09.03.2006 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and direct the respondents herein to regularize the services of the petitioner and bring her into the regular time scale of pay with effect from the date of completion of 3 years service as per G.O.Ms.No.71 (Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department) dated 05.05.1998 with all consequential monetary and service benefits.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Balaji For Respondents : Mrs.P.Rajalakshmi, Government Advocate

¶9

ORDER

¶10

The petitioner was recruited as Sanitary worker through employment exchange in the year 1998 and continued to work in that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ capacity. As per G.O.Ms.No.71 (Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department) dated 05.05.1998, the petitioner is entitled to get her services regularized after completion of three years from her

¶11

original date of appointment and therefore, the respondents ought to have regularized the service of the petitioner from the year 2001. However, the third respondent by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.10152006-H1 dated 09.03.2006 has regularized the service of the petitioner and therefore, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the said proceedings of the third respondent dated 09.03.2006 and to direct the respondents herein to regularize the services of the petitioner and bring her into the regular time scale of pay with effect from the date of completion of 3 years service as per G.O.Ms.No.71 (Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department) dated 05.05.1998 with all consequential monetary and service benefits.

¶12

2.Mrs.P.Rajalakshmi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that as against the order passed by the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.1015-2006-H1 dated 09.03.2006, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition only now that too after a lapse of 8 years and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches.

¶13

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as against the order passed in W.P.No.4229 of 2010 and other writ petition, Writ Appeals in W.A.Nos.1306 and 2389 of 2011 have been preferred before a Division Bench of this Court. In the said Writ Appeals and in W.P.Nos.18284 to 18286 of 2013, this Court has considered G.O.Ms.No.71 (Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department) dated 05.05.1998, and conferred the benefits to similar Sanitary Workers and therefore, the present writ petition may be allowed.

¶14

4.I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Government Advocate that the present writ petition may be dismissed on the ground of laches.

¶15

5.In the aforesaid judgements this Court, has taken into consideration the G.O.Ms.No.71 (Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department) dated 05.05.1998 and directed the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners therein on completion of three years of service from their original date of appointment besides if their services were found satisfactory. In the case on hand, there is no complaint from the third respondent that the petitioner's service was not satisfactory during her service and as a matter of fact, the third respondent has regularized the service of the petitioner by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1015-2006-H1 dated 09.03.2006 instead of regularizing her service from the year 2001 onwards i.e., on her completion of three years from her original date of appointment. Hence, in my considered opinion, the writ petition is liable to be allowed.

¶16

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

¶17

6.In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the proceedings of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.1015-2006-H1 dated 09.03.2006 is quashed and the third respondent is directed to regularise the service of the petitioner from the date on which her completion of three years from the date of her original appointment as per G.O.Ms.No.71 (Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department) dated 05.05.1998, and pay the arrears of monetary benefits to the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶18

Sd/Asst. Registrar[cs.ii] Dt/-09/10/2014 /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. jbm To 1.The The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. 3.The Commissioner, Cuddalore Municipality, Cuddalore. 1 CC To Mr.S.Balaji, Advocate SR NO.42899 1 CC to the Government Pleader SR NO 43494 W.P.No.24592 of 2014 rv[co] gp/10.10

¶19

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

Tmt.Selvi v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tmt.Selvi v. The State of Tamil Nadu

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

R.Palani Vs Mrs.Sabitha

G.Mohammed Sheriff Vs Mrs.Sabitha

Mr. K.Thavasi, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Dr. C.Thirunavukarasu, Vs Periyar University

S.Murugesan, Vs The District Collector

J.Ramesh, S/o.M.Jayaseelan, Vs The State of Tamilnadu