In this writ appeal regarding service regularisation of a school sweeper, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court declined to interfere with the impugned order as pending appeals in the Supreme Court precluded immediate revision. The court dismissed the appeal.
The writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.04.2016 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
Writ Appeal (MD)No.821 of 2016
1.The Secretary,
The Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Education, Fort St. George,
chennai – 9.
2.The District Educational Officer,
Thuckalay Educational Officer,
Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District.
... Appellant/ Petitioner
vs.
J.Selvaraj ... Respondent/ Respondent
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, , to set aside the impugned common order dated 30.11.2012 passed in W.P.(MD) No.6035 of 2008.
Prayer in WP(MD). 6035/ 2008 :
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No. 363/AA1/2008 dated 25/04/2008 and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondnet to regularise services of petitioner with effect from 21/04/1992 and to pay his salary as per scale
For Appellant ... Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan
For Respondents ... Mr.V.M.Balamohan Thambi
ORDER (ORDER OF THE COURT WAS MADE BY S.MANIKUMAR, J.)
Yesterday, when M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2013 filed to condone the delay of 154 days in filing W.A.(MD) No.28611 of 2013, came up for hearing, Mr.V.M.Balamohan Thambi, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that pursuant to the order made in W.P.(MD) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ No.6035 of 2008, dated 30.11.2012, orders were issued by the appellants regularising the service of the respondent, as Sweeper.
2
On that date, the State counsel sought time to get instructions.
2.Reverting, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that service of the respondent having been regularised subject to the result of the matters pending on the file of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He also submitted that arising out of same issue, 16 appeals have been filed.
3.Per contra, Mr.V.M.Balamohan Thambi, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that after the orders of regularisation, the respondent had attained superannuation as Sweeper and being paid all terminal benefits have been paid.
4.Notwithstanding the appeals pending on the file of this Court, on the facts and circumstances of this Case stated supra, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order made in W.P.(MD) No.6035 of 2008, in the instant appeal.
5.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, no order as to costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CS-II)
/True copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Secretary,
The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Department of Education, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.
2.The District Educational Officer, Thuckalay Educational Officer, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District.
Writ Appeal (MD)No.821 of 2016 28.04.2016
arul
SH/SKS-RR/SAR-II:02.06.2016:2P/5C
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ appeal filed to set aside the order regularising the respondent's service should be allowed.
Whether the pending appeals in the Supreme Court prevent interference with the order of regularisation.
The Secretary, The Government of Tamil Nadu
J.Selvaraj
S.Manikumar
S.S.Sundar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
