Disposed

S.Esakkimuthu v. the Principal Secretary to Govt.

Madras HC20 Jul 2022WP(MD)/5203/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court addressed a claim for employment on daily wages equivalent to the Sweeper/Scavenger pay scale. The Court directed the Principal Secretary and respondents to consider the petitioners' 2020 representations on merits within three months, citing their inaction as dereliction of duty that justified condoning the petitioners

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioners' representations dated 02.01.2020 on merits and pass appropriate orders within three months.

S.Esakkimuthu Vs the Principal Secretary to… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.5203 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 20.07.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.5203 of 2020

¶7

1.S.Esakkimuthu

¶8

2.K.Selvarani

¶9

3.P.Sureshkumar

¶10

4.S.Arumugam

¶11

5.S.Marimuthu

6.S.Maharasi

... Petitioners

Vs.

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Public Works Department, Chennai – 600 009.

¶16

2.The Engineer-in-Chief Water Resources Department and Chief Engineer (General), Public Works Department, Chepauk,

¶17

Chennai – 600 005.

¶18

1/6

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.(MD).No.5203 of 2020

¶21

3.The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Water Resource Organization, Madurai Region, Madurai – 625 002.

¶22

4.The Superintending Engineer, Water Resource Organization, Public Works Department, Thamiraparani Basin Circle, Tirunelveli.

¶23

5.The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Water Resource Organization, Thamiraparani Basin Division, Tirunelveli.

¶24

6.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Water Resource Organization, Lower Thamiraparani Basin Sub Division, Sri Vaikundam, Thoothukudi District.

¶25

...Respondents

¶26

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to provide employment to petitioners on daily wages equivalent to basic pay at the minimum of pay scale applicable to the post of Sweeper/Scavenger with Dearness Allowance thereupon applicable from time to time, in view of G.O.No.137 dated 13.09.2019 and G.O.(Ms).No.233 of 06.12.2019, by considering petitioners' representation dated 02.01.2020 within the period stipulated by this Court.

¶27

2/6

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.(MD).No.5203 of 2020

¶30

For Petitioners : Mr.A.Haja Mohideen For Respondents : Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia, Special Government Pleader.

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The petitioners herein had given representations to the second respondent on 02.01.2020 seeking for employment on daily wages equivalent to basic pay at the minimum pay scale applicable to the post of Sweeper/Scavenger. Since the said representations were not considered, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶33

The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that though the petitioners herein had not been working from 2011 onwards, they have belatedly approached this Court. Therefore, they are not entitled for the relief sought for.

¶34

I am not in agreement with such a submission. Though the petitioners have admitted that they had not worked from 2011 onwards, they had made representations to the respondents ventilating their grievances and the respondents have failed to consider the representations in time. The very

¶35

3/6

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.(MD).No.5203 of 2020

¶38

failure on the part of the respondents in considering such a representation amounts to dereliction of ordinary duties of their office and therefore, this Court will be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India and thereby condone the latches on the part of the petitioners herein.

¶39

In the light of the above observations, there shall be a direction to the second respondent herein to consider the petitioners' representations dated 02.01.2020 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any of its views with regard to the merits of the claim of the petitioners and that it is open to the concerned respondent to consider the same on its own merits.

¶40

5. With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There

¶41

shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

20.07.2022

¶43

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Lm

¶44

4/6

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.(MD).No.5203 of 2020

¶47

¶48

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Public Works Department, Chennai – 600 009.

¶49

2.The Engineer-in-Chief Water Resources Department and Chief Engineer (General), Public Works Department, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶50

3.The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Water Resource Organization, Madurai Region, Madurai – 625 002.

¶51

4.The Superintending Engineer, Water Resource Organization, Public Works Department, Thamiraparani Basin Circle, Tirunelveli.

¶52

5.The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Water Resource Organization, Thamiraparani Basin Division, Tirunelveli.

¶53

6.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Water Resource Organization, Lower Thamiraparani Basin Sub Division, Sri Vaikundam, Thoothukudi District.

¶54

¶55

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

¶56

W.P.(MD).No.5203 of 2020

¶57

M.S.RAMESH, J.

¶58

¶59

W.P.(MD).No.5203 of 2020

¶60

20.07.2022

¶61

6/6

¶62

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

S.Esakkimuthu v. the Principal Secretary to Govt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Esakkimuthu v. the Principal Secretary to Govt.

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

N.Venkateshwaran, Vs the Commissioner

K.Selvaraj, S/O.Kasi, Vs the Additional Chief Secretary

Rajarajan S Vs The Additional Chief Secretary

R.Kaliyanandi Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

A.Joseph, Vs Mr.S.Karunanithi

The Secretary Vs the State of Tamilnadu