Disposed

C.Masilamani, v. The Special Secretary

Madras HC8 Jun 2015WP/7976/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a suspension order passed against a Noon Meal Organiser. Finding the respondents non-compliant with interim stay, the Court directed payment of salary and allowances and mandated a final enquiry within four months.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to pay salary from the date of the impugned order, Subsidence Allowance until the enquiry concludes, and completing the enquiry within four months.

C.Masilamani, Vs The Special Secretary — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 08.06.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

¶5

W.P.No.7976 of 2015 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015

¶6

C.Masilamani .. PETITIONER

¶7

Vs
1. The Special Secretary,
Social Welfare and Nutritious
Meal Programme, Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The District Collector,
Collectorate Office,
Villupuram,
Villupuram District.
3. The Commissioner,
Gingee Panchayat,
Gingee, Villupuram District. .. RESPONDENTS
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for the issue of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire
relating records from the 2 nd respondent Collector of Villupuram and
quash impugned order in Reference No.Na.Ka.N.BE4/5797/2014 dated
13.03.2015.

¶8

For petitioner : Mr.K.Jayaraman For respondents : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, 1 and 2 Special Government Pleader For 3^rd respondent : Mr.S.V.Duraisolamalai

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

The petitioner is a Noon Meal Organiser. The 2^nd respondent, namely, the District Collector, Villupuram, passed an impugned order dated 13.03.2015 preventing the petitioner from discharging his duties. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition to quash the aforesaid order.

¶11

This Court while ordering notice of motion on 20.03.2015, also granted stay of the operation of the order. Now, the 3^rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit.

¶12

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

¶13

Heard both sides.

¶14

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the impugned order prevents the petitioner from discharging his duties for which the 2^nd respondent has no power. The following sentence in the impugned order is seriously objected to by the petitioner which is as follows:

¶15

“13/03/2015 gpw;gfy; Kjy; gzp bra;a jil bra;J ,jd; thapyhf cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ/”

¶16

On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 has submitted that the impugned order is nothing, but a suspension order. By passing the impugned order, the petitioner was prevented from discharging his duties. The impugned order could be treated as a suspension order. Thereafter a charge memo was issued and enquiry is pending.

¶17

In reply, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though this Court granted interim stay on 20.03.2015 and though the petitioner issued contempt notice, the respondents have not chosen to comply with the order and they failed to restore the petitioner in service pending disposal of the Writ Petition until the stay is vacated.

¶18

I find some force in the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

¶19

Until the stay is vacated, the respondents are supposed to comply with the order. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the Writ Petition could be disposed of by directing the respondents to pay salary from the date of the impugned order till date and the respondents are directed to pay Subsistence Allowance hereafter until the enquiry is over and final order is passed. The 2^nd respondent is also directed to complete the enquiry and pass final orders within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed.

¶20

tsi

¶21

-s/dAssistant Registrar

¶22

True Copy

¶23

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶24

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

¶25

To
1. The Special Secretary,
Social Welfare and Nutritious
Meal Programme, Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The District Collector,
Collectorate Office,
Villupuram,
Villupuram District.
3. The Commissioner,
Gingee Panchayat,
Gingee, Villupuram District.
+ 1 cc to Mr.K.Jayaraman, Advocate SR 27998
+ 1 cc to Government Pleader SR 27444
+ 1 cc to Mr.S.V.Durai Solaimalai, Advocate SR 27674
ku(co)
prk15/6
W.P.No.7976 of 2015

¶26

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

C.Masilamani, v. The Special Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Masilamani, v. The Special Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Nepoleon, Vs The Secretary to Government

R.Ayesha Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

N.Kuppusamy Vs The State of Tamilnadu

P.Mathiyan Vs the Secretary to Government

Dr.L.Anitha Vs The Registrar

R.Senthilkumar Vs The Joint Director of School