In a writ appeal, the Court rejected the challenge against an observation that the appellant's service period after 12.05.2016, following non-compliance with a transfer order post-dismissal, shall be treated as leave on loss of pay.
The writ appeal was dismissed with no costs.
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.
W.A.No.2725 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.08.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.A.No.2725 of 2019
D.Padmavathy ... Appellant
-Vs-
The Commissioner of Fisheries Chennai - 600 006.
... Respondent
Prayer : Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order in W.P.No.16059 of 2015 dated 23.04.2019.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Sanjay for Mr.R.Dhinesh Kumar For Respondent : Mr.R.Kumaravel Additional Government Pleader
J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)
This writ appeal has been directed against the order passed by the writ Court
dated 23.04.2019 made in W.P.No.16059 of 2015.
1/10
W.A.No.2725 of 2019
respondent Department. When she was working at Chennai, on 02.06.2015 a transfer order has been passed directing her to join at Radhapuram, Tirunelveli District. Challenging the said transfer order, the aforesaid writ petition was filed by the petitioner / appellant, where the writ Court, by order dated 08.06.2015 granted an interim order of stay. Pursuant to the order of stay, on 10.06.2015, 29.07.2015, 12.08.2015, 02.11.2015 and 26.12.2015, it is claimed by the appellant that representations have been given to the respondent Department to comply with the stay order by allowing the petitioner / appellant to continue to stay and work at Chennai. Despite that, according to the petitioner / appellant the interim order of stay has not been complied with. Therefore, she has filed a contempt petition also.
29.03.2016, since there was no representation for the petitioner, it was directed to be listed on the next day ie., on 30.06.2016 under the caption 'For Dismissal'. Even on 30.03.2016 since there was no representation for the petitioner / appellant, the said writ petition was dismissed for default on 30.03.2016.
2/10
W.A.No.2725 of 2019
30.03.2016 passed in W.P.No.16059 of 2015 was set aside and the writ petition was restored to file.
3/10
W.A.No.2725 of 2019
meanwhile issued against the petitioner was under challenge. Ultimately, by consent a common order has been passed by the learned Judge on 23.04.2019, where the learned Judge has given the following directions.
" 5. Recording the statement made by the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent(s) that Mr.S.Jude Armstrong, Joint Director of Fisheries will be conducting the enquiry in respect of the first charge memo dated 11.8.2014 issued to the petitioner, Tmt.Joice Olive Rachel, Deputy Director of Fisheries is relieved as the enquiry officer. Accordingly, in view of the consent given by both the parties for the appointment of Mr.S.Jude Armstrong, Joint Director of Fisheries as the enquiry officer to go into the correctness of the charge memo dated 11.8.2014 containing three charges and also the second charge memo dated 2.6.2015 containing four charges, the petitioner is directed to cooperate with the enquiry officer, who shall complete the enquiry in respect of both the charge memos dated 11.8.2014 and 2.6.2015 and file his reports to the Department expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Commissioner of Fisheries is also at liberty to issue fresh transfer order to the petitioner. However, the petitioner is entitled to count her service till 12.5.2016, as she was enjoying the benefit of stay order and the period spent thereafter shall be treated as leave on loss of pay. With this observation and direction, both the writ petitions shall stand disposed of. No costs."
4/10
W.A.No.2725 of 2019
be treated leave on loss of pay alone is offending according to the petitioner / appellant. Therefore, only to eschew or erase such portion of the order, the present appeal has been directed by the petitioner, he contended.
5/10
W.A.No.2725 of 2019
despite the writ petition was dismissed for default and even after restoration of the writ petition, the stay order granted in the miscellaneous petition has not been restored, it cannot be stated that automatically the stay order also got restored and under the cloud or under the shadow of the alleged interim order of stay having been restored, the petitioner / appellant cannot seek any shelter to claim immunity to join service in the transferred place. Therefore, the observation made by the learned Judge in the order impugned that the period after 12.05.2016 is to be treated only as leave on loss of pay is of course correct view taken by the learned Judge, he contended.
6/10
W.A.No.2725 of 2019
7/10
W.A.No.2725 of 2019
(R.S.K.,J..) (K.B.,J.) 25.08.2023
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No KST
To
The Commissioner of Fisheries Chennai - 600 006.
8/10
W.A.No.2725 of 2019
9/10
W.A.No.2725 of 2019
R.SURESH KUMAR, J. and K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
KST
W.A.No. 2725 of 2019
25.08.2023
10/10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the period between 01.04.2016 and 12.05.2016 during which the appellant did not join the transferred place can be counted as service for pay and benefits.
Whether the appeal challenging the lower court's observation that service after 12.05.2016 shall be treated as leave on loss of pay has any merit.
D.Padmavathy
The Commissioner of Fisheries Chennai
R.Suresh Kumar
K.Kumares Babu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
