In this writ petition, the petitioner sought quashing of an order denying subsistence allowance during a suspension period as a Noon Meal Organiser. The High Court examined the claim but dismissed the petition without substantive engagement on the merits due to lack of appearance by the petitioner.
None granted; writ petition dismissed and no costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.12.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
W.P.NO.29209 OF 2007
M.Manickam ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Collector,
Thiruvannamalai,
Thiruvannamalai District.
2. The Commissioner,
Cheyyar Panchayat Union, Cheyyar,
Thiruvannamalai District. ... Respondents
Prayer:
Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order
of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.A8/3494/07 dated 31.07.2007
and quash the same and direct the respondents to pay subsistence
allowance to the petitioner for the period of suspension,
namely, 18.01.2005 to 26.06.2006.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Rajendran No appearance For Respondents: Mr.K.Magesh Special Government Pleader
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.A8/3494/07 dated 31.07.2007, quash the same and direct the respondents to pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner for the period of suspension viz., 18.01.2005 to 26.06.2006.
effect from 18.01.2005. Subsequently, the said order of suspension was revoked and he was reinstated in service and he joined duty on 27.06.2006. During his suspension period viz., 18.01.2005 to 26.06.2006, he was not paid any subsistence allowance, therefore, he made a representation to the first and second respondents but no order was passed on his representation. Subsequently, he filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.21227 of 2007. This Court vide order dated 22.06.2007, directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 20.07.2006. The respondent rejecting the representation of the petitioner, passed an impugned order dated 31.07.2007, stating that there is no rule for payment of subsistence allowance to Noon Meal Organiser Employees and therefore, the same is applicable to the petitioner. Challenging the above said impugned order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IX)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sni
To
1. The Collector,
Thiruvannamalai,
Thiruvannamalai District.
2. The Commissioner,
Cheyyar Panchayat Union, Cheyyar,
Thiruvannamalai District.
+1cc to Mr.K.Magesh, Advocate, S.R.No.38482
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.38661
W.P.No.29209 of 2007
UM(CO)
CS/03/02/2021
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Noon Meal Organiser is entitled to subsistence allowance for suspension period in absence of a service rule.
Whether the dismissal of a meritless writ petition with no petitioner appearance warrants costs.
M.Manickam
The Collector, Thiruvannamalai
The Commissioner, Cheyyar Panchayat Union
P.Velmurugan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
