Allowed

M.Jothi v. The Secretary to Government of

Madras HC6 Jul 2017WP/37990/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of the writ petition concerning regular time scale of pay for municipal employees. The bench chose to decide the matter based on the directions of the Full Bench judgment in Secretary to Government MAWSD Vs. V.Marisamy rather than waiting for the outcome of pending Supreme Court special leave petitions, granting entitlement to benefits under that earlier judgment.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners entitled to benefits conferred in the Full Bench judgment in Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.87 of 2014, Rev.Appl.No.223 of 2015 and W.A.(MD) No.555 of 2010.

M.Jothi Vs The Secretary to Government of — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 06.07.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.No.37990 of 2016

¶6

1.M.Jothi
2.R.Mageshwari
3.P.Banumathi
4.M.Kala
5.M.Perumal
6.K.Rathinammal
7.K.Ravi ...Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu
Municipal Administration and
Water Supply Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai -600 009.
2. The Director of Municipal Administration and
Water Supply Department,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
3. The Commissioner,
Salem Corporation,
Salem District
...Respondents

¶7

Prayer: The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1 to 3 respondents to bring the petitioners under regular time scle in terms of proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 05.01.1999 in Na.Ka.No.C2/25050/97 as well as the G.O.M.S.No.71, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 05.05.1998 with all service and monetary benefits within the stipulated period.

¶8

For Petitioners : Mr.P.I.Thirumoorthy For Respondents : Mr.K.Dhananjayan

¶9

Spl.Govt. Pleader for RR1 & 2

¶10

Ms.R.Bhuvaneswari for R3

¶11

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

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The writ petiition is filed to redress the grievance of writ petiitioners claiming regular time scale of pay in terms of G.O.Ms.No.71, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 05.05.1998. The conditions in the said G.O.Ms.No.71 stipulates that the employees completed 10 years of service as on 31.12.1996 are eligible to be brought under the regular time scale pay.

¶14

2.May that it be.

¶15

3.The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners contended that the entire issue was elaborately adjudicated and the Full Bench of this court rendered a Judgment in the case of the Secretary to Government MAWSD Vs. V.Marisamy and others reported in (2017) 3 CTC 673. The Full Bench while dismissing the Rev.Aplc.No.87 of 2014 and by allowing Rev.Appl.Nos.223 and 254 of 2015 passed the following orders:

¶16

a)persons employed as sanitary workes and covered by G.O.Ms.No.101 dated 30.04.1997 and G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 05.05.1998 are entitled to be regularised after the conpletion of the respective period under consolidated pay as specified in the Government Orders from the date of their initial appointment.

¶17

b)Any orders passed by any Municipality regularising the service based on G.O.Ms.No.21 dated 23.02.2006. Full Bench Judgment dated 29.11.2013 and G.O.Ms.No.166 dated 31.12.2014 shall be recalled and appropriate orders shall be passed as held above.

¶18

4.At this juncture, the learned Government Pleader brought to the notice of this court that SLPs are filed challenging the judgment of the Full Bench of this court but appeals are yet to be numbered and at this stage this court is unable to consider the submissions in view of the fact that the SLPs numbers are not produced before this court. Under these circumstances, this court is inclined to consider the claim in the light of the directions given by the Full Bench of this Court in the case cited supra.

¶19

5.Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of and the writ petitioners are entitled to get the benefits conferred in the judgment of Full Bench in case Nos.Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.87 of 2014, Rev.Appl.No.223 of 2015 and W.A.(MD) No.555 of 2010.

¶20

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

¶21

6.With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(CS VII)

¶24

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
kas
To.
1. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu
Municipal Administration and
Water Supply Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai -600 009.
2. The Director of Municipal Administration and
Water Supply Department,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
3. The Commissioner,
Salem Corporation,
Salem District
+3 ccs to M/s.P.I.Thirumoorthy Advocate sr 47322
+1 cc to the Government Pleader High Court Madras
sr 47266
W.P.No.37990 of 2016
arvii
aa17/07/2017

¶25

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

M.Jothi v. The Secretary to Government of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Jothi v. The Secretary to Government of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. R.Gandhi Vs The Superintendent of Police

S.Ramesh Vs The Union of India

S. Yakub Khan, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by

P.Chitra Kala Devi Vs The Secretary to Government

R.Madhaiyan Vs The Secretry to Government

V.Gopal, S/o.N.Vasudevan, Vs General Manager (Drilling)