Allowed

Andi, S/O.Karuppan, v. the Director of Townpanchayats

Madras HC23 Mar 2018WP(MD)/2544/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a writ petition seeking reinstatement of a scavenger petitioner. The court directed the Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, to reinstate the petitioner forthwith and directed the Secretary to Government to pass appropriate proceedings within twelve weeks. The court declined to express an opinion on back wages.

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith; Secretary to Government directed to pass appropriate proceedings within twelve weeks.

Andi, S/O.Karuppan, Vs the Director of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 23.03.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.2544 of 2018

Andi

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Director of Town Panchayats, Kuralakam, Chennai.

¶11

2.The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Arignar Anna Malihai, Madurai.

¶12

3.The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply, Secretariat, Chennai-9. ...Respondents

¶13

(R3 is suo motu impleaded as per the order of this Court dated 23.03.2018)

¶14

PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner either in the second respondent office by the second respondent or in any town panchayat in Madurai District by the first respondent within time stipulated by this Court and consequently, directing the respondents to pay the back wages.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.RM.Arun Swaminathan For R1 and R3 : Mr.K.Saravanan, Government Advocate. For R2 : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Mr.K.Saravanan, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents 1 and 3 and Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen, learned counsel, appearing for the second respondent.

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.By consent of both parties, the main Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶19

¶20

3.The petitioner was appointed as Scavenger on 11.03.1998 in the Vilankudi Town Panchayat. He was subsequently removed from service. The same was questioned in W.P.(MD).No.5870 of 2002. By order dated 23.06.2010, the said Writ Petition was allowed. The order impugned therein was set aside and the said Town Panchayat was directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith with continuity of service, but without back wages. Subsequently, the said Panchayat was merged with Madurai Corporation.

¶21

4.Since the name of the petitioner did not find place in the list of the employees to be absorbed by Madurai Corporation, the petitioner herein was left out. The petitioner is now aged about 57 years. It is unfortunate that the petitioner was denied employment for the last eight years. Since the stand of the Corporation is that only on account of the petitioner's name not being found in the Government order issued by the Government, they couldn't absorb the petitioner, this Court Suo-motu impleads the Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply, Secretariat, Chennai-9, as the third respondent in this Writ Petition.

¶22

5.The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation/second respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith. This Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the payment of back wages and other aspects. The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply, Secretariat, Chennai-9 is directed to pass appropriate proceedings in this regard within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

6.The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(Crl. side)

¶26

/True Copy/

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

1.The Director of Town Panchayats, Kuralakam, Chennai.

¶30

2.2.The Commissioner,

¶31

Madurai Corporation, Arignar Anna Malihai, Madurai.

¶32

3.The Secretary to Government, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Municipal Administration and Water Supply, Secretariat, Chennai-9.

¶33

¶34

+1cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No. 57963 +1cc to M/S.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen, Advocate SR.No. 57674 +1cc to M/S.D.S.Haroon Rasheed, Advocate SR.No. 58334

¶35

ORDER MADE IN W.P.(MD).No.2544 of 2018 23.03.2018

¶36

tsg JM/SV MMS/SAR 1/05.04.2018/3P/7C

¶37

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

Andi, S/O.Karuppan, v. the Director of Townpanchayats

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Andi, S/O.Karuppan, v. the Director of Townpanchayats

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

M/S.Industrial Mineral Company Vs the Commissioner of Customs

M/S.Industrial Meineral Co, Vs the Commissioner of Customs

S.Udhayakumar Vs Union of India

R.Gomathy, Vs the Secretary to Government

R.Kumar Vs the Administrative Officer

R.v.Rajavel, Vs the Commissioner