Dismissed

A.Sundarraj v. the Secretary to Govt.

Madras HC17 Feb 2015WP(MD)/7626/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses two writ petitions challenging the denial of service regularisation and monetary benefits. The court, relying on a prior Division Bench decision, held that the prayer cannot be granted. The petitioners sought regularisation of service as per a specific Government Order for sweeper staff and school employees.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed with no costs awarded.

A.Sundarraj Vs the Secretary to Govt. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.02.2015 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶3

Writ Petition (MD) Nos.7626 and 7599 of 2013 A.Sundarraj ... Petitioner in W.P.No.7626 of 2013 P.Packiyam ... Petitioner in W.P.No.7599 of 2013 Vs.

¶4

1.The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, School Education Department, Fort St., George, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Director of School Education, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai 600 006. 3.The District Educational Officer, Karur District, Karur. 4.The Headmaster, Government Higher Secondary School, Lalapettai 639 105, Karur District. ... Respondents in W.P.No.7626/2013 1.The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, School and Education Department, Fort St., George, Chennai 9 2.The Director of School Education, No.6, College Road, Chennai. 3.The Chief Educational Officer, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District. 4.The District Educational Officer, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District. 5.The Headmaster, Government Higher Secondary School, N.Mettupatti, Nenmeni Post, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents in W.P.No.7599 of 2013 Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.7626 of 2013: Petition filed under Article 226 of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to regularize the service of the

¶5

petitioner in time scale of pay as per G.O.Ms.No.22 Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 28.02.2006 from the date of completion of 10 years of service and to pay all monetary benefits to the petitioner forthwith.

¶6

Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.7599 of 2013: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to regularize the petitioners service as the sweeper in the 5th respondent school with all the attendant service benefits from the date of her initial appointment and all other notional monetary benefits by considering her representations dated 17.08.2009 & 29.10.2011.

¶7

ORDER

¶8

In both the writ petitions, the petitioners are seeking regularisation of their service in time scale of pay as per G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative (Reforms) Department, dated 28.02.2006 from the date of completion of 10 years of service and to pass all monetary benefits to the petitioner forthwith.

¶9

2.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners fairly submitted that the issue involved in this case is squarely covered by a decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court reported in 2014 (5) CTC 474 (State of Tamil Nadu Vs. M.Seeniammal and others) and against the petitioners.

¶10

3.Learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents also submitted that in view of the above said decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench which followed the subsequent Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.74, Personnel and Administrative (Reforms) Department, 27.06.2013, the prayer sought for in these writ petitions cannot be granted.

¶11

4.Considering the above said submissions made by the respective counsel and by following the above said decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench reported in 2014 (5) CTC 474 (State of Tamil Nadu Vs. M.Seeniammal and others), both the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.

¶12

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶13

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

sms

1.The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, School and Education Department, Fort St., George, Chennai 9 2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-610 006 3.The Chief Educational Officer, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District. 4.The District Educational Officer, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District. 5.The Headmaster, Government Higher Secondary School, N.Mettupatti, Nenmeni Post, Virudhunagar District. 6.The District Educational Officer, Karur District, Karur. 7.The Headmaster, Government Higher Secondary School, Lalapettai 639 105, Karur District. +1cc to Special Government Pleader Sr NO.7812 Writ Petition (MD) Nos.7626 and 7599 of 2013 17.02.2015 rg.13.03.2015 3p.9c.

¶18

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

A.Sundarraj v. the Secretary to Govt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Sundarraj v. the Secretary to Govt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Gurusamy Vs the Managing Director

V. Varatharaja Perumal Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

M. Balasubramanian, Vs the Managing Director

G.Vasantha Vs the District Forest Officer

G.Pandi, S/O a. Gurunathan, Vs National Council for Coopera-

Mayil Rajaperumal, Vs Tamil Nadu Public Service