Disposed

S.Priya v. Secretary to the Government

Madras HC7 Dec 2022WP/2641/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of writ petitions challenging a communication regarding alleged non-payment of salary for five months. The Court directed the Educational Officer to pass final orders on the petitioners' request for payment within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Educational Officer, Greater Chennai Corporation, to pass final orders on the petitioners' request for payment of their five months salary within eight weeks from the date of receipt of t

S.Priya Vs Secretary to the Government — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P. Nos.2641 of 2022 and 27639 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 07.12.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

Writ Petition Nos.2641 of 2022 and 27639 of 2021 and W.M.P. Nos.2796, 2799, 2800, 2802 of 2022 and W.M.P. Nos.29176 to 29179 of 2021

¶7

1.S.Priya 2.Grace Rani 3.Y.Sumathi 4.N.Venmathi 5.K.V.Deborah 6.V.Vasanthi 7.B.Jesintha 8.J.Bee Fathima 9.M.Revathi 10.V.J.Punithavathi 11.R.Revathi 12.K.Iniyavathi 13.C.Ramaiya 14.A.Sharmila Banu 15.N.Sumathy

¶8

.. Petitioners in W.P. No.2641 of 2022

¶9

16.M.Gunasundari 17.S.Padmapriya 18.K.S.Padma Priyah 19.S.Jayasri 20.K.Uma 21.R.Subashini 22.M.Jayanthi 23.R.Aruna 24.N.Rajalakshmi 25.M.Akila 26.L.Hemalath 27.R.Chitra 28.K.Kalivani 29.E.Chithra 30.N.Chithra 31.A.Sakina Farheen

¶10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶11

_________ Page 1/6_

¶12

W.P. Nos.2641 of 2022 and 27639 of 2021

¶13

32.Sameera Fathima 33.M.Saridha 34.R.Bharathi 35.A.Josephine Clement 36.K.Rama 37.S.Latha 38.P.Malarvizhi 39.Uma 40.D.Vimala 41.S.Sangeetha 42.R.Kavitha 43.V.Dhanalakshmi 44.R.Esther Rani 45.R.Sri Kumari 46.T.Anandhi 47.R.Shobana 48.V.Ramya 49.S.Sabitha 50.C.Meena 51.J.Ranjani 52.R.Sussila 53.C.Kanmani 54.Kalaivani

¶14

.. Petitioners 1 to 39 in W.P. No.27639 of 2021

¶15

Vs.

¶16

1.Secretary to the Government Municipal, Administration and Water Supplies Department Fort St. George Chennai - 600 009

¶17

2.The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation Rippon Building Chennai - 600 003

¶18

3.The Joint Commissioner (Education) Greater Chennai Corporation Rippon Building, Chennai - 600 003

¶19

4.Educational Officer Greater Chennai Corporation Rippon Buildings Chennai - 600 003

¶20

.. Respondents in both WPs

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

_________ Page 2/6_

¶23

W.P. Nos.2641 of 2022 and 27639 of 2021

¶24

¶25

Common Prayer : Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records and quash order reference No.Ka.Thu.Na.No.E2/11381/2021 dated 30.09.2021 issued by the fourth respondent and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to rejoin and continue in the posts of kindergarten teachers in various schools of the Chennai Corporation.

¶26

¶27

For Petitioners : Ms.N.Beulah John Selvaraj in both WPs

¶28

For Respondents : Mr.E.Sundaram, in both WPs Govt. Advocate for R1 Mr.S.Gopinathan for R2

¶29

COMMON ORDER

¶30

The petitioners in these writ petitions have challenged the impugned communication of the fourth respondent in No.Ka.Thu.Na.No.E2/11381/2021 dated 30.09.2021 requesting the petitioners to produce all relevant records pertaining to their grievance with regard to the alleged non-payment of their salary for a period of five months.

¶31

It is now brought to the notice of this court by the learned standing counsel appearing for the Greater Chennai Corporation that

¶32

subsequent to the filing of the above writ petitions, the petitioners have https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

Page 3/6

¶34

W.P. Nos.2641 of 2022 and 27639 of 2021

¶35

produced certain documents to the respondents for their scrutiny and verification. He would now submit that, if a direction is issued, the respondents will pass final orders with regard to petitioners' request seeking for payment of five months salary, which according to the petitioners, was not paid by the respondents. No prejudice will be caused to any of the parties, if such a direction is issued by this court.

¶36

For the foregoing reasons, this court directs the fourth respondent, namely the Educational Officer, Greater Chennai Corporation, Rippon Building, Chennai, to pass final orders on the petitioners' request seeking for payment of their five months salary, which is the subject matter of this writ petition, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶37

With the aforesaid direction, these writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶38

07.12.2022

¶39

Asr

¶40

Index : Yes/No Speaking order/Non speaking order

¶41

¶42

1.Secretary to the Government

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

_________ Page 4/6_

¶45

W.P. Nos.2641 of 2022 and 27639 of 2021

¶46

Municipal, Administration and Water Supplies Department Fort St. George Chennai - 600 009

¶47

2.The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation Rippon Building Chennai - 600 003

¶48

3.The Joint Commissioner (Education) Greater Chennai Corporation Rippon Building, Chennai - 600 003

¶49

4.Educational Officer Greater Chennai Corporation Rippon Buildings Chennai - 600 003

¶50

5.The Government Pleader High Court, Madras

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

_________ Page 5/6_

¶53

W.P. Nos.2641 of 2022 and 27639 of 2021

¶54

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

¶55

Asr

¶56

W.P. Nos.2641 of 2022 and 27639 of 2021 and WMPs

¶57

07.12.2022

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶59

_________ Page 6/6_

S.Priya v. Secretary to the Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Priya v. Secretary to the Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.G.Raguram Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Dr. R.Sathiya Moorthy, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

V.Bhanumathi, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

V.Sundararajan Vs The District Collector

T.Senthil Kumar Vs Chennai Metro Rail Ltd.

Y.Rani Vs The Principal Secretary