Partly allowed

M. Shylaja, v. the Director of Collegiate

Madras HC10 Feb 2015WP(MD)/16638/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging dismissal and seeking reinstatement as Steno-Typist, the High Court directed the Director of Collegiate Education to consider the petitioner's request for appointment approval without backwages within eight weeks, dismissing the prayer for continuity of service during the dismissed period as admissions of non-service.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition partially allowed directing the Director to consider petitioner's reinstatement request without backwages within eight weeks; prayer for continuity of service dismissed.

M. Shylaja, Vs the Director of Collegiate — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

M.Shylaja

¶3

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.02.2015 CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

¶5

W.P.(MD) No.16638 of 2014

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

vs.

¶8

1.The Director of Collegiate Education, College Road,

¶9

Chennai.

¶10

2.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli,

¶11

Tirunelveli District.

¶12

3.The Secretary cum Correspondent,

¶13

Women's Christian College,

¶14

Nagercoil

¶15

Kanyakumari District ...Respondents

¶16

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus to direct the 2^nd respondent to approve the reinstatement of the petitioner as Steno Typist in the 3^rd respondent college with effect from 29.01.1998 treating the period of absence i.e. from 28.11.1994 to 28.01.1998 as continuity of service without backwages and disburse grant-in-aid towards the petitioner's salary including monetary benefits.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Xavier Rajini For Respondents : Mr.R.Anandaraj for R1 and R2 Government Advocate No appearance for R3

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The writ petition is filed for a direction to the 2^nd respondent to approve the reinstatement of the petitioner as Steno Typist in the 3^rd respondent college with effect from 29.01.1998 by treating the period of absence i.e. from 28.11.1994 to 28.01.1998 as continuity of service without backwages and disburse grant-in-aid towards the petitioner's salary including monetary benefits.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2.

¶21

It is seen that the petitioner, who was originally working in the third respondent College as Steno Typist, was dismissed from service on 28.11.1994. Thereafter, she was given re-employment by the third respondent College on 28.01.1998. The petitioner seeks a direction to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ approve the reinstatement of the petitioner as Steno-Typist with effect from 29.01.1998. Insofar as this prayer is concerned, it is for the

¶22

¶23

official respondent to consider the request of the petitioner and pass orders on the same on merits and therefore, this Court directs the 2^nd respondent to consider the request of the petitioner seeking for approval of appointment as Steno-Typist with effect from 29.01.1998 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24

However, in respect of the other limb of prayer, namely, for treating the period from 28.11.1994 to 28.01.1998, the period of absence, as continuity of service is concerned, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to such relief, as admittedly, she was not in service during such period and the earlier order of dismissal passed by the third respondent has also not been set aside. When that being the factual position, the petitioner cannot seek for treating those period, in which, admittedly, the petitioner was not in service as continuity of service. Accordingly, insofar as the 2^nd limb of prayer as stated supra is concerned, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(RTI)

¶27

\True copy\

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

¶30

1.The Director of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai.

¶31

2.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

¶32

3.The Secretary cum Correspondent, Women's Christian College, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District

¶33

+1 CC TO M/S.S.XAVIER RAJINI, ADVOCATE SR.NO.6093

¶34

W.P.(MD) No.16638 of 2014 10.02.2015

¶35

¶36

NA/20/02/2015/P2/5C

¶37

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

M. Shylaja, v. the Director of Collegiate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Shylaja, v. the Director of Collegiate

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

D.Joseph Dhanapaul Vs the Director of School

R. Chelladurai, Vs the Director

P. Anandaraman Vs Recovery Officer

D.Muniasamy Vs the Principal Secretary

K.Subbiah Pandi Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

R.Haridoss, Vs the State of Tamilnadu