Disposed

G.Kumar v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC28 Nov 2023WP/33285/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On the petitioner's claim for salary and benefits regarding forced employment periods, the Court observed that the statutory authority failed to consider his recent representation. Consequently, the Court issued a direction to the respondents to decide the matter on merits within four weeks and disposed of the petition without expressing views on the claim's merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider the petitioner's representation of 23.10.2023 and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

G.Kumar Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.33285 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 28.11.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

W.P.No.33285 of 2023

G. Kumar

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶11

2.The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶12

3.The Joint Director of School Education (Personnel), Directorate of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶13

4.The Chief Educational Officer, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

¶14

5.The District Educational Officer (Secondary), Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

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

1/6

W.P.No.33285 of 2023

PRAYER:

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶21

India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to settle the salary and other service benefits for the period forced out of employment from 27.11.2015 to 16.03.2017 as well as from 01.10.2022 to 08.08.2023 in the post of Deputy Inspector of Schools with all consequential and other attendant benefits as per the ratio laid down by this Court in W.P.(MD).No.11090 of 2021 dated 30.06.2022 as confirmed in the orders passed in W.A.(MD).No.1812 of 2023 dated 12.10.2023, in consideration of representation submitted by the petitioner, with all consequential and other attendant service benefits.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.G. Sankaran, Senior Counsel for Mr.J. Jayamalan For Respondents : Mr.V.P.R. Elamparathi, Additional Government Pleader

¶23

ORDER

¶24

With the consent of both the parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶25

2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

W.P.No.33285 of 2023

¶27

2. The petitioner herein has given several representations to the respondents, including his last representation dated 23.10.2023, seeking to regularize the period of service as duty period/compulsory wait and to pay salary for the entire period. Since the said representation has not been considered till date, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶28

3. It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this nature is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon them to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. As such, non-consideration of the representation by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty and hence, this Court will be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India and direct them to consider the same within a stipulated time.

¶29

4. In the light of the above observations, there shall be a direction to the respondents herein, to consider the petitioner's representation dated 23.10.2023, on their own merits and pass appropriate orders in

¶30

3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

W.P.No.33285 of 2023

¶32

accordance with law, within a period of four (4) weeks 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 petitioner and that it is open to the concerned respondent to consider the same on its own merits.

¶33

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

¶34

No costs.

¶35

28.11.2023

¶36

Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order Internet: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶37

Sni

¶38

4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

W.P.No.33285 of 2023

¶40

¶41

1.The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, School Education Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶42

2.The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶43

3.The Joint Director of School Education (Personnel), Directorate of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶44

4.The Chief Educational Officer, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

¶45

5.The District Educational Officer (Secondary), Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

¶46

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.33285 of 2023

M.S.RAMESH,J.

Sni

W.P.No.33285 of 2023

28.11.2023

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

G.Kumar v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Kumar v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Senguttuvan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

R.Xavier Rajamani Vs the Director General of Police

S.Chinnaswamy Vs State of Tamilnadu

C.Krishnan Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Dr.N.Shettu Vs The Director of Collegiate Education

S.Balakrishnan Vs The Secretary to Government