Dismissed

The Secretary v. Tmt J.Suguna

Madras HC9 Nov 2018WA/295/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed a Writ Appeal and upheld a Single Judge's order allowing a petition in part. A recovery of benefits was quashed because re-fixation of seniority was done by the department without false representation. The Single Judge's directive to issue notice for pay scale refixation was also upheld, finding no error.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal dismissed; recovery quashed; appellants directed to issue notice and hear the respondent before passing orders on pay scale refixation.

The Secretary Vs Tmt J.Suguna — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 09.11.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶5

Writ Appeal No.295 of 2013

¶6

1.The Secretary, Labour Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai – 9. 2.The Commissioner of Labour, D.M.S Complex, Teynampet, Chennai 6. 3.The Inspector of Labour, Sainathapuram, Vellore – 632 001. ... Appellants/Respondents Vs. Tmt.J.Suguna ... Respondent/Petitioner Prayer:Writ Appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 13.03.2012 of passed in W.P.No.27076 of 2009 on the file of this Court.

¶7

WP.No.27076/2009 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the 3rd respondent in connection with the impugned orders passed by him in the DO:A/2887/2009 -2 & A/4222/2009 dated 1/10/2009 and quash the same and direct the respondents to fix the revised pay scale of the petitioner on the basis of her persent designation & seniority and grant her all the consequential service and monetary benefits.

¶8

For Appellants : Mr.C.Kathirvelu, Special Government Pleader For Respondent : Mr.N.V.Prasanna, for M/s.Sai Bharath

¶9

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

¶10

JUDGMENT

¶11

(Judgement of the Court was delivered by M.M.Sundresh.J)

¶12

This Writ Appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.27076 of 2009 dated 13.03.2012 and who was pleased to allow the writ petition in part.

¶13

2.There were two issues raised before the learned Single Judge of this Court. One is, with respect to the re-fixation done and the other is consequential recovery. The learned Single Judge was pleased to set aside the order by which, recovery was sought for and directed the appellants herein to issue notice to the respondent herein for the re-fixation of the pay scale and pass further order in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.18861 of 2001 etc., batch dated 28.02.2005.

¶14

3.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants would submit that the re-fixation of seniority itself has been done after compliance of the order passed by the Division Bench. The respondent herein has been promoted wrongly and since, the respondent herein was given higher scale of pay, recovery has been made.

¶15

4.The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the re-fixation of pay scale has been done without notice to the respondent and as it was done not at the instance of the respondent and inasmuch as the respondent infact worked in the said capacity after re-fixation of the seniority, the order of recovery cannot be sustained, in the eye of law and therefore, no interference is required.

¶16

5.As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, it is not as if the respondent has entered herself to the promotional post by making false representation and further, the re-fixation of seniority itself has been done by the appellants themselves. In pursuant to the same, the respondent has also worked in the said capacity. Therefore, the recovery as sought for by the appellants cannot be sustained in the eye of law. In such view of the matter, we do not find any error in the order of the learned single Judge.

¶17

6.Coming to the other issue, i.e., with respect to the refixation of pay scale of the respondent, though it is contended by the learned Special Government Pleader that it has been done in pursuant of the order of the Division Bench referred supra, the learned Single Judge merely directed the appellants herein

¶18

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

¶19

to issue notice to the respondent herein and hear her and thereafter, pass appropriate orders. Now, the appellants cannot be stated to be aggrieved by the said order. In such view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶20

7.In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

¶21

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar

¶22

//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
jbm
To
1.The Secretary,Labour Department,
Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
2.The Commissioner of Labour,
D.M.S Complex,Teynampet,Chennai 6.
3.The Inspector of Labour,
Sainathapuram,Vellore – 632 001.
+1cc to Mr.Sai Bharath, Advocate SR.No.77160
+2cc to Government Pleader SR.No.77039 & 77048
W.A.No.295 of 2013
KK(CO)
GMY(24/12/2018)

¶23

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

The Secretary v. Tmt J.Suguna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Secretary v. Tmt J.Suguna

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

Bernard Antony D sylva Vs Union of India rep by the

Union of India Vs The Registrar

R.Ravimaran Vs Union Of India

Faculty Welfare Assn, Titi, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

N.Balasubramani, Vs the District Educational

Maya Manikandan, Vs State of Tamil Nadu