Disposed

Mohammed Niyamathullahkhazi v. The Additional Chief Secretary

Madras HC7 Jun 2019WP/4626/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's claim for regularization of service and increments. The High Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within four weeks, then dispose of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within four weeks and re-submit a proposal to the first respondent; disposing of the writ petiti

Mohammed Niyamathullahkhazi Vs The Additional Chief… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 07.06.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH and

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

Writ Petition No.4626 of 2018

¶7

Mohammed Niyamathullah Khazi ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government/ Principal Secretary to Government, Home (Courts-V) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Registrar General, High Court of Judicature of Madras, Chennai – 600 104. 3.The Registrar (Management) High Court of Judicature of Madras, Chennai – 600 104. 4.The Sub Assistant Registrar (Establishment), High Court of Judicature at Madras, Chennai – 600 104. ... Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the first respondent in proceeding (i) Letter No.74923/Cts.V/2016-4, Home (Courts-V) Department dated 20.09.2017, communicated to the petitioner vide ROC No.56273/2016-Estt. IV dated 15.11.2017 issued by the fourth respondent proceeding No.(ii) ROC.No.72942/16.ESTT.I, dated 28.02.2017 issued by the second respondent and Proceeding No. (iii)ROC.No.176/2008-CON.ESTT.I, dated 28.12.2012 issued by the second respondent and quash the Proceeding No.(i) in its entirety, Proceeding No.(ii) in so far as the petitioner is concerned and (iii) to the limited extent of date of effect from which the petitioner's service is regularized and to direct the 2^nd respondent herein to regularize the service of the petitioner with effect from 12.08.2009 i.e.,

¶9

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

¶10

date of initial appointment in the post of Interpreter (Urdu) and to grant regular annual increment as on 01.07.2010 in the post of Interpreter (Urdu) with monetary benefit and to grant regular annual increment notionally as on 01.07.2011 and with monetary benefits from 26.05.2012 i.e., the date following the date of passing the departmental test and regular annual increment from 01.07.2012 onwards with monetary benefits and accordingly, to re-fix his pay and grant him all consequential benefits within the time frame.

¶11

(Prayer amended vide order dated 22.01.2019, made in WMP No.38978/18 in W.P.No.4626/2018 by MVJ and RPAJ)

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ravi For Respondents: Mr.V.Shanmuga Sundar, Special Government Pleader O R D E R [Order was delivered by R.SUBBIAH, J]

¶13

Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking quash of the proceedings of the first respondent in proceeding (i) Letter No.74923/Cts.V/2016-4, Home (Courts-V) Department dated 20.09.2017, communicated to the petitioner vide ROC No.56273/2016-Estt. IV dated 15.11.2017 issued by the fourth respondent and to quash the same and direct the respondents herein to grant regular annual increments to the petitioner as on 01.07.2010 with monetary benefits and notional increment as on 01.07.2011 with monetary benefits from 26.05.2012 and regular annual increments with effect from 01.07.2012 onwards in the post of Interpreter (Urdu) and to refix the petitioner's pay accordingly and to grant all consequential benefits within a limited time frame.

¶14

2.The petitioner herein was initially appointed as Reader/Examiner on 07.05.2004 and later promoted as Assistant on 01.03.2007. Applications were invited for filling up vacancies in the category of P.A. To the Hon'ble Judges, interpreter (Tamil & Telugu) and interpreter (Urdu). Since the petitioner possessed the prescribed qualification for the post of interpreter (Urdu), he applied for the post. By the official memorandum dated 30.07.2009, the petitioner was called to appear for an interview on 05.08.2009. Accordingly, the petitioner was interviewed along with open market candidates. The petitioner was selected for the said post and subsequent under official memo dated 12.08.2009, the petitioner was appointed.

¶15

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

¶16

3.In the appointment order dated 12.08.2009, the petitioner who was the Assistant in High Court, Madras was promoted to the post of Interpreter (Urdu) by transfer w.e.f., 12.08.2009 subject to the condition that he should pass the translation test in English to Tamil within a period of two years from the date of promotion. It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the nomenclature used for petitioner's appointment to the post of interpreter (Urdu) as if the same is by ‘promotion by transfer’ is only misnomer for the sake of administrative convenience and that the fact remains that the petitioner has been recruited to the said post. The petitioner would have been recruited to the said post subsequently within a period of two years and he is fully eligible for drawal of the first annual increment on 01.07.2010 and notional increment on 01.07.2011 with monetary benefits from 26.05.2012. But the petitioner's claim was rejected by the first respondent whereas, the similar claim of two interpreters (Tamil and Telugu) who initially preferred writ petitions along with the petitioner in W.P.Nos.10961 & 13755 of 2017 was considered and they got favourable orders.

¶17

4.When the matter is taken up for consideration, the first respondent and second respondent informed that there is an error in the appointment order as if the petitioner was appointed to the post of interpreter by ‘promotion by transfer’. Hence, the petitioner was directed to give a representation to rectify the error in the appointment order. The second respondent will consider the said representation and once an order is passed, the petitioner will get all the benefits. The said submission of the counsel is recorded.

¶18

5.However, the second respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks and re-submit a proposal to the first respondent.

¶19

6.With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶20

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy//

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government/
Principal Secretary to Government,
Home (Courts-V) Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar General,
High Court of Judicature of Madras,
Chennai – 600 104.
3.The Registrar (Management)
High Court of Judicature of Madras,
Chennai – 600 104.
4.The Sub Assistant Registrar (Establishment),
High Court of Judicature at Madras,
Chennai – 600 104.
+1 cc to Mr.M.Ravi, Advocate, Sr.No. 47064
Writ Petition No.4626 of 2019
CSL/25.06.2019

¶26

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

Mohammed Niyamathullahkhazi v. The Additional Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Niyamathullahkhazi v. The Additional Chief Secretary

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

Agnes Eapen Vs the Special Commissioner and

G.Ling Siva Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

N.Rajkumar Vs Rohini R.Bhajibhakare, IAS

V.Manikantan Vs The Principal District Judge

M.Sadeesh Kumar, Vs The Principal District Judge

S.Kottesewaran Vs The Tahsildar