Allowed

M.Manjula v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC18 Oct 2023WP/28408/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a writ petition filed by an Assistant apprehending subordinate to His Government services, who sought revision of her seniority and promotion. The Court held that retrospective regularisation granted via Government Order entitled her to seniority re-fixation and all consequential benefits on par with her junior counterpart.

What did the court decide?

Revision of petitioner's seniority and promotion as Assistant on par with junior Hari Krishnan with all consequential service and monetary benefits.

M.Manjula Vs the Government of Tamilnadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P. No.28408 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 18.10.2023

¶4

CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN and

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

W.P. No.28408 of 2023

¶7

M. Manjula Petitioner

¶8

¶9

1 The Government of Tamil Nadu represented by its Additional Secretary Home (Court-5) Department Fort St. George Chennai 600 009

¶10

2 The Registrar General High Court, Madras 600 104

¶11

3 The Principal District Judge Cuddalore District Cuddalore Respondents

¶12

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings A.R. No.5801/2020 dated 11.03.2021 and quash the same and consequently, direct the third respondent to revise the seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of Assistant and promote her as Assistant by including her name in the appropriate panel notionally at par with her junior with all consequential service and monetary benefits.

¶13

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

¶14

1/7

¶15

W.P. No.28408 of 2023

¶16

For petitioner Mr. A.G. Rajan For R1 Mr. A. Selvendran Special Government Pleader For RR 2 & 3 Mr. R. Kannan Kumar Standing Counsel

¶17

ORDER

¶18

(made by S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.)

¶19

This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings dated 11.03.2021 of the third respondent and for a direction to the third respondent

¶20

to revise the petitioner's seniority in the cadre of Assistant and promote her as Assistant, by including her name in the appropriate panel notionally on par with her junior with all consequential service and monetary benefits.

¶21

2 The case of the petitioner is that her seniority needs to be revised in the cadre of Assistant and she should be promoted and placed on par with her junior, Hari Krishnan, who recently retired and she should also be paid all consequential benefits.

¶22

3 According to the petitioner, she was appointed on compassionate

¶23

ground as Junior Assistant on the demise of her father P. Muruganantham, a Junior Bailiff at the Principal District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore, on https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 09.05.2007; she joined on 13.12.2007; her services were terminated on

¶24

2/7

¶25

W.P. No.28408 of 2023

¶26

31.07.2014 on the ground that her appointment was irregular, which made her challenge the termination order by filing W.P.No.23888 of 2014, which was disposed of vide order dated 17.12.2014, wherein, inter alia, a direction was issued to consider her request on she producing necessary certificate from the Tahsildar, in respect of her financial position; accordingly, on submission of such a certificate through the third respondent seeking regularisation of her temporary service,the Government, vide G.O. (3D) No.39, Home (Courts-V) Department dated 06.09.2016, accepted the proposal of regularisation of the temporary service of the petitioner with effect from 13.12.2007 and based on that, she was re-appointed as Junior Assistant in the Principal District Court, Cuddalore and she joined duty on 01.11.2016 and she was declared as approved probationer with effect from 13.12.2009; thereafter, she was temporarily promoted as Assistant and thereafter, transferred to the Principal District Munsif Court, Cuddalore and deputed as Assistant in the I Additional District Court, Cuddalore; even though the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits and her service has been regularised based on G.O. (3D) No.39, supra , the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, passed an order dated 11.03.2021 stating that since re-fixation of seniority involves continuous service and as there was a break in service from 01.08.2014 to 31.10.2016, re-

¶27

fixation of seniority could be considered only after regularisation of break in service and hence, the petitioner's application was returned as the same could 3/7

¶28

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

¶29

W.P. No.28408 of 2023

¶30

not be considered then.

¶31

4 A reading of G.O. (3D) No.39, supra , more so, paragraph 3, would make it clear that the services of the petitioner in the post of Junioir Assistant have been regularised with retrospective regularisation with effect from 13.12.2007 (forenoon) and she is also eligible to draw annual increments and arrears of pay and allowances.

¶32

5 In view of the aforesaid Government Order, the petitioner is entitled to regularisation of her services and also all the benefits, including notional benefits, on par with her counterpart who is junior in the seniority list, as if her services have been regularised. The exercise of re-fixation of seniority and calculation of amount in respect of the benefits she is entitled to, shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶33

In the result, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs.

¶34

(S.V.N., J.) (K.R.S., J.) 18.10.2023

¶35

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

¶36

4/7

¶37

W.P. No.28408 of 2023

¶38

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

¶39

5/7

¶40

W.P. No.28408 of 2023

¶41

¶42

1 The Additional Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu Home (Court-5) Department Fort St. George Chennai 600 009

¶43

2 The Registrar General High Court, Madras 600 104

¶44

3 The Principal District Judge Cuddalore District Cuddalore

¶45

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

¶46

6/7

¶47

W.P. No.28408 of 2023

¶48

S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.

and

K. RAJASEKAR, J.

cad

W.P. No.28408 of 2023

¶53

18.10.2023

¶54

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

¶55

7/7

M.Manjula v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Manjula v. the Government 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

Samuthrakulam Abiviruthi Vs 1.THE District Collector

V.Sambandan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.

P. Gnanasekaran Vs the Secretary

A/M Kumbeswarar Koil Vs the Commissioner

K.Venkatasamy Vs The District Collector

The Chairman Vs The District Revenue Officer