Dismissed

State of Tamil Nadu, v. K.Lakshmi

Madras HC11 Sept 2018WA(MD)/546/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court Bench dismissed the writ appeal filed by State education officials against an order directing regularization of a petitioner's service. The Court held the earlier order had attained finality and could not be collaterally reviewed, noting the 10-year service requirement was met in 2004.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal and connected Miscellaneous Petition were dismissed. No costs awarded.

State of Tamil Nadu, Vs K.Lakshmi — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 11.09.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

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

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶7

W.A.(MD)No.546 of 2018 and C.M.P. (MD) No.3111 of 2018

¶8

1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Education Department,

¶9

Secretariat, Chennai.

¶10

2.The Director of School Education,

¶11

Chennai - 6.

¶12

3.The Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli.

¶13

4.The District Educational Officer, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District.

¶14

...Appellants/Respondents

¶15

Vs.

¶16

K.Lakshmi ...Respondent/Writ Petitioner

¶17

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent against the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.5952 of 2017 dated 19.04.2017.

¶18

Prayer in WP(MD). 5952/ 2016 :

¶19

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pass an order of regularization on completion of 10 years of service i.e. with effect from 2004 with arrears of salary as per the order passed by this Honble Court in WP No.14277 of 2008, dated 26/06/2008 with all consequential benefits.

¶20

For Appellants: Mrs.S.Srimathy Special Government Pleader For Respondent: Mr.V.Panneerselvam

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J )

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ This writ appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge, who was pleased to allow the writ

¶24

¶25

petition based upon the earlier order dated 26.06.2008, in W.P.No.14277 of 2008, by which regularization was directed to be processed from the date of initial appointment of the respondent.

¶26

2.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants would submit that regularization was indeed done with effect from 08.04.2008. The respondent is not entitled to regularization from the year 2004 onwards.

¶27

3.We do not find any merit in this appeal. What is to be seen is the attaining of finality of the order passed in W.P.No.14277 of 2008 dated 26.06.2008, which was between the inter se parties. Therefore, collaterally such order cannot be reviewed. In such order, it is stated that the appellants have to regularize the service of the respondent on the completion of 10 years of service by her. In such view of the matter, 10 years period is completed in the year 2004 as ordered by this Court. Hence, this writ appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶28

4.Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. However, the question of regularization of part time service is not decided in this appeal. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. No costs.

¶29

// True Copy //

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶31

¶32

1.The Secretary, Education Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai.

¶33

2.The Director of School Education, Chennai - 6.

¶34

3.The Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli.

¶35

4.The District Educational Officer, Cheranmahadevi,

¶36

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

¶37

¶38

1 CC TO SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, IN SR NO.84050

¶39

1 CC TO MR.V.PANNEERSELVAM, ADVOCATE IN SR NO.83897

¶40

¶41

BU/PM/SAR-I :10.10.2018 : 3P/7C

¶42

W.A.(MD)No.546 of 2018 and C.M.P. (MD) No.3111 of 2018 11.09.2018

¶43

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

State of Tamil Nadu, v. K.Lakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Tamil Nadu, v. K.Lakshmi

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

K. Sermakani, S/O. Kanthan, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Veera Subramanian Vs the Bar Council of India

S.Poothathan, Vs the District Collector

S.Alavanthar, Vs the District Collector

Uthiraselvam, Vs the Inspector of Police

Seevan Selvaraj Vs the District Collector