Disposed

P.Thandapani v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC26 Feb 2020WP/10151/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought directions to resume duty as a sweeper after long absence due to illness. Court found instructions pending with the 3rd respondent and directed them to decide and reply within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd respondent to decide and reply to the 4th respondent's letter dated 21.08.2008 within twelve weeks.

P.Thandapani Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 26.02.2020 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR W.P.No. 10151 of 2015

¶2

P.Thandapani ..Petitioner

¶3

¶4

The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary to Government Department of Municipal Administration and Water Supply Fort St.Geroge, Chennai – 600 009.

¶5

2.The Director of Municipal Administration Chepauk, Chennai-600005.

¶6

3.The Assistant Director Town Panchayats Cuddalore Division, Cuddalore District.

¶7

The Executive Officer, Selection Grade Town Panchayat Vadakanandal, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent herein to issue necessary instructions to the 4^th respondent herein to permit the petitioner to resume duty as a sweeper in the 4^th respondent office.

¶8

For Petitioner : M/s. S.Arunkumar

¶9

For Respondents : Mr. J.Ramesh, AGP – R1 to R3 Mr.K.Rajendraprasad - R4

¶10

1/7

¶11

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

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The prayer sought for in the Writ Petition is to direct the 1^st respondent herein to issue necessary instructions to the 4^th respondent herein to permit the petitioner to resume duty as a sweeper in the 4^th respondent office.

¶14

Heard Mr. S.Arunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and Mr. J.Ramesh. learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.K.Rajendraprasad, learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent and perused the documents available on record.

¶15

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the writ petitioner was appointed as a permanent sweeper in the 4^th respondent office on 01.10.1982. During the year 1990, the petitioner fell sick due to mental illness and he could not attend duty. Thereafter, he was fully recovered from his illness and the 4^th respondent has permitted the petitioner to resume duty from 08.03.2003 and he was not paid salary for want of production of medical fitness certificate. The petitioner has submitted medical fitness certificate dated 14.07.2006 issued by the Chairman, District Medical Board, Joint Director of Health Services, Villupuram District.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that subsequent to the production of Medical Fitness Certificate by the petitioner, the 4^th respondent sent a letter in Na.Ka. No. a1/58/2006 dated 21.08.2008 to the 3^rd respondent seeking necessary instructions to permit the petitioner to resume duty as a sweeper. Further at that time, 10 vacancies were available in the post of sweeper in the 4^th respondent's office. But till date no reply has bee received from the 3^rd respondent. The 4^th respondent informs the petitioner that unless suitable instructions are received from the higher authorities concerned, he cannot permit the petitioner to resume duty. Hence, filed this writ petition seeking necessary directions to the 3^rd respondent.

¶17

On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 has submitted that the writ petitioner was not attended duty from the year 1990 for the reason that he suffered from mental illness and after a period of 16 years i.e in the year 2006, he made representation to the 4^th respondent and sought for reinstatement into service. The said request was rejected as there was no vacancy at the time of considering his request.

¶18

2/7

¶19

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

¶20

On a perusal of records, it is seen that the writ petitioner was appointed as sweeper in the 4^th respondent department and he was not attended duty from the year 1990 due to mental illness and after more than 16 years, he made a representation to reinstate him in the post of sweeper, that was rejected. The 4^th respondent vide his letter dated 21.08.2008 addressed to the 3^rd respondent sought for clarification to reconsider the petitioner's reqeust to reinstate him into service based on the documents filed by him. So far, the Assistant Director Town Panchayats, Cuddalore District/3^rd respondent herein has not passed any order.

¶21

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, this Court without expressing any of its opinion, but on the short ground that the instructions sought for the by the 4^th respondent is still pending before the 3^rd respondent, finds it appropriate to direct the 3^rd respondent to send a reply to the 4^th respondent within a stipulated time.

¶22

Accordingly, the Assistant Director Town Panchayats, Cuddalore District / 3^rd respondent herein is directed to take decision on the letter dated 21.08.2008 addressed by the 4^th respondent and send a reply to the 4^th respondent as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition if any is closed.

¶24

s/dAssistant Registrar(CS VI)

¶25

True Copy

¶26

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶27

¶28

3/7

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

The Secretary to Government Department of Municipal Administration and Water Supply Fort St.Geroge, Chennai – 600 009.

¶32

2.The Director of Municipal Administration Chepauk, Chennai-600005.

¶33

3.The Assistant Director Town Panchayats Cuddalore Division, Cuddalore District.

¶34

The Executive Officer, Selection Grade Town Panchayat Vadakanandal, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District.

¶35

+1 cc to Mr.S.Arunkumar Advocate sr17269

¶36

+1 cc to the Government Pleader sr17758

¶37

W.P.No. 10151 of 2015

¶38

aa13/07/2020

¶39

4/7

¶40

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

P.Thandapani v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Thandapani v. The State of Tamilnadu

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

A.Muthazhagi, Vs The Secretary to Government

P.Jayaseeli Vs Government of Tamilnadu

M.Kuppan, S/o. K.Mahalingam, Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

P.Thenmozhi Vs The Commissioner

Vinayagam Vs The Divisional Engineer

A.Priyadharshini Vs The Director of Elementary