Disposed

G.Babu v. The Commissioner of

Madras HC22 Nov 2018WP/13957/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the first petitioner challenged an order of transfer by the relevant municipality alleging it was punitive. The Court held that transfer is a condition of service and allowed the petitioner to submit a representation to the authority to redress personal grievances within a reasonable time, discharging the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The first petitioner permitted to submit a representation; respondent director to consider the same and pass orders on merits within a reasonable period; writ petition disposed of.

G.Babu Vs The Commissioner of — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :08.03.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.No.13957 of 2018

¶6

1.G.Babu

¶7

2.K.Allimuthu

¶8

3.K.Anandhan

¶9

4.M.Veeramani

¶10

5.M.Palanisamy

¶11

6.K.C.Arumugam

¶12

7.K.Madhu .. Petitioners

¶13

¶14

The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk,

¶15

Chennai-600 005.

¶16

The Commissioner, Komarapalayam Municipality, Namakkal District. .. Respondents

¶17

Prayer:

¶18

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 01.06.2018 made in Na.Ka.No.14882/2018/J3 passed by the first respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to continue their service as the sanitary workers in the second respondent Municipality.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran for 1^st petitioner

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.A.N.Thambidurai Special Govt. Pleader for R1

¶21

Mr.T.M.Pappiah

¶22

Special Govt. Pleader for R2

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The order of transfer is under challenge in the present writ petition. Though, the writ petition was initially filed by

¶25

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

¶26

the seven petitioners, the petitioners 2 to 7 had already withdrawn the writ petition today in W.M.P.No.7452 of 2019 with the permission of this Court. As far as the first writ petitioner is concerned, he had been appointed in the Transfered Post and now working.

¶27

The learned counsel for the first petitioner states that, the order of transfer has been issued by way of punishment and therefore, the same is liable to be scraped.

¶28

This Court is of an opinion that, transfer is an incidental to services more so a condition of service. However, an order of transfer can be challenged if it was issued by ancompetent authority or on allegation of malafide raised or if the same has been issued by the way of punishment.

¶29

Though, the learned counsel for the first petitioner states that, it is an order of punishment and the same has disputed by the respective learned Special Government Pleaders appearing on behalf of the respondents. There are many allegations against the first petitioner and the competent authorities have issued an order of transfer on administration grounds and for the purpose of effective administration in the particular station. However, certain personal grievances expressed by the learned counsel for the first petitioner has to be redressed only through the Competent Authorities. The Competent Authorities are empowered to consider the said representation if any submitted by the first petitioner to accommodate him in any nearby places.

¶30

In this regard, the first petitioner is permitted to submit a representation to the authority concerned, setting out of the facts and details. In the event of any such representation, the first respondent is directed to consider the same and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a reasonable period of time. The personal grievances if any stated also shall be considered by the Competent authorities.

¶31

With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶32

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶33

//True Copy//

¶34

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶35

vji / dua

¶36

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

¶37

¶38

The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. 2. The Commissioner, Komarapalayam Municipality, Namakkal District. +1cc to Mr.N.Manokaran, Advocate, S.R.No.22320 W.P.No.13957 of 2018

¶39

CS/29/03/2019

¶40

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

G.Babu v. The Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Babu v. The Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Ramasamy Vs The Managing Director

M.a.Margabandu, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

M.Janarthanam Vs The Chief Secretary to Govt

Dr.K.Thenmozhi Vs The Director of Medical

Dr. Jacqueline Mary Lamboume Vs The Director of Collegiate

S. Kumar Vs The Director of School Education