Allowed

A.Rajendrakumar, v. the Managing Director

Madras HC30 Nov 2018WP(MD)/5985/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the Madras High Court directed transport corporation officials to regularize the petitioner's absence period as medical leave. The court allowed the petition after noting the respondents had withdrawn the misconduct charges against the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Redirected respondents to regularize the petitioner's leave period from 13.07.2011 to 12.02.2012 as medical leave with all consequential benefits.

A.Rajendrakumar, Vs the Managing Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 30.11.2018 CORAM :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶4

W.P.(MD)No.5985 of 2014

A.Rajendrakumar

... Petitioner

vs.

1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,

¶9

Madurai.

¶10

2.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., Dindigul Region, Dindigul. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to regularize the period of petitioner's leave from duty from 13.07.2011 to 12.02.2012 as a period spent on medical Leave of the petitioner with all consequential benefits thereon within time stipulated by this Court.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Lawrance For Respondents : Mr.A.Jayaram

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The above writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to regularize the period of petitioner's leave from duty from 13.07.2011 to 12.02.2012 as a period spent on medical of the petitioner with all consequential benefits thereon within time stipulated by this Court.

¶15

2.The petitioner was employed as a Permanent Clerk in the 2^nd respondent corporation at Dindigul. The petitioner was transferred from original office to Branch III, Dindigul. Under these circumstances, the petitioner made representations to the respondents to retain him back in the original office at Dindigul. Incidentally, the petitioner fell ill at the time when the transfer order was served him. The petitioner therefore remained absent between 13.07.2011 and 12.02.2012. The petitioner later reported duty at Branch III Dindigul of the respondent office. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

3.Since the petitioner was on leave, the respondents issued 8

¶17

¶18

different charge memos for each of the months by treating the petitioner's absence during the aforesaid period as unauthorised absent warranting punishment under 16(2) of Certified Standing Order of the respondent Corporation. The said clause deals with misconduct. The petitioner was found guilty after enquiry and was awarded a punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect.

¶19

4.Aggrieved by the order of the 2^nd respondent, the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul under Section 2(r) of I.D.Act. 1947. In the course of the conciliation proceedings, the respondents agreed to drop the charges framed against the petitioner by letter dated 21.06.2013, which was communicated to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul.

¶20

5.After the said order was communicated, the petitioner has sent several representations to the respondents with a request to treat the period of absence as his eligible medical leave. However, his representations have not evoked any response. Under these circumstances, the petitioner filed this present writ petition for the above relief to direct the respondents to regularise the period of petitioners leave from 13.07.2011 to 12.02.2012 as period spent on medical leave with consequential benefits.

¶21

6.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents have filed counter, wherein, they have submitted that the petitioner involved in illegal strikes and therefore no benefits can be given to the petitioner based on the principle of “No Work, No Pay.”.

¶22

7.Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had undergone Angio surgery on 07.04.2009 at Meenakshi Mission Hospital at Madurai and therefore, he was unable to report duty.

¶23

8.Be that as it may, the respondents have withdrawn the charge and have dropped the punishment against the petitioner by their letter dated 19.06.2014. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefits that are available to him as per the norms. Had the department continued the proceedings under the I.D.Act., the denial of the benefits of the petitioner would have been justified. However, as the punishment has been withdrawn, I am inclined to allow the writ petition.

¶24

9.Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(P&A)

¶27

/True Copy/

¶28

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

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶30

¶31

¶32

1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Madurai.

¶33

2.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., Dindigul Region, Dindigul.

¶34

+1cc to Mr.J.Lawrance Advocate in SR.No.98179 +1cc to Mr.A.Jayaram Advocate in SR.No.98150

¶35

W.P.(MD)No.5985 of 2014 30.11.2018

¶36

ARUL SPRSK SAR2 21.12.2018 3P 5C

¶37

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

A.Rajendrakumar, v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Rajendrakumar, v. the Managing Director

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

T. Meenakshisundaram, Vs the Secretary to Govt.

M.Maheswari Vs the Secretary to Government

Valar Akilan, Vs the Director Central Board

Sargunan @ Murali, Vs the Director of School

T.S.Jayaparthasarathy Vs State of Tamilnadu

Mookkaiah, Vs the District Collector