Allowed

P.Palaniappan v. the Managing Director

Madras HC6 Apr 2023WP(MD)/9564/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner seeks confirmation of service from 01.04.2012. The High Court held that since the accident was due to a burst tyre and not rash driving, the delay caused by the subsequent criminal acquittal was not attributable to the employee's fault. The Court directed the respondents to regularize service from the earlier date.

What did the court decide?

Confirmation of service granted from 01.04.2012 with all attendant benefits to be completed within eight weeks.

P.Palaniappan Vs the Managing Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.9564 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 06.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.9564 of 2019

¶7

and W.M.P.(MD)No.7523 of 2019

P.Palaniappan

... Petitioner

vs.

1.The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited, New Railway Station Road, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.

¶12

2.The General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited, Administrative Section, Pudukkottai Zone, Pudukkottai. ... Respondents

¶13

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

¶14

1/9

¶15

W.P.(MD)No.9564 of 2019

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order made in TNSTC/Kumba/Puma/Sathu/S.M/87 passed by the 1^st respondent, dated 17.04.2015 and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to confirm the service of the petitioner with effect from 01.04.2012 instead of 01.09.2014 with all attendant benefits within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.P.R.Prithiviraj For Respondents : Mr.D.Sivaraman

¶18

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This writ petition is filed for writ of Certiorarified

¶21

Mandamus, to quash the impugned order dated 17.04.2015 passed by the 1^st respondent and consequently, to direct the respondents to confirm the service of the petitioner with effect from 01.04.2012 instead of 01.09.2014 with all attendant benefits within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶22

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

¶23

2/9

¶24

W.P.(MD)No.9564 of 2019

¶25

The petitioner was appointed as Reserve Driver on daily wages basis with a salary of Rs.179/- per day, vide order, dated 31.08.2009. Since the petitioner has completed 180 days, the petitioner was appointed on 09.06.2011 again on daily wages basis with certain conditions and the petitioner was brought under Contributory Pension Scheme. On 12.11.2011, when the petitioner was driving the bus, the right back side tyre of the bus burst and resulted in an accident, thereby, a woman who was sitting inside the bus was injured on her right leg. For this accident, a show cause notice, dated 17.04.2013 was issued and the petitioner submitted an explanation on 06.05.2013. After enquiry, the petitioner was imposed with a punishment of postponement of increment for six months with cumulative effect, vide order, dated 09.12.2013. The petitioner preferred a revision and the same punishment was confirmed. For the said accident, a criminal case was initiated in Crime No.221 of 2011 on 13.11.2011 for the offences under Sections 279, 338 of IPC and

¶26

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

¶27

3/9

¶28

W.P.(MD)No.9564 of 2019

¶29

the same was taken cognizance in C.C. No.1 of 2013 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate Court, Thirumayam. In the said case, the petitioner was acquitted.

¶30

When the facts being so, the 2^nd respondent vide

¶31

communication, dated 20.04.2012 confirmed the service of the employees who were appointed on the same date. The petitioner was appointed on the same day and the respondents did not consider the petitioner's case and declined confirmation. Thereafter, the respondent vide proceedings, dated 07.10.2014 passed an order confirming the petitioner's service only from 01.09.2014 instead of 01.04.2012. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation, dated 05.12.2014 but the respondents did not consider the same. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.2175 of 2015 and this Court vide order dated 18.02.2015 directed the 1^st respondent to consider and pass orders within a period of twelve weeks. After considering the

¶32

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

¶33

4/9

¶34

W.P.(MD)No.9564 of 2019

¶35

same, the respondents passed the impugned order and declined to grant confirmation from the 2012 but the persons who joined along with the petitioner were granted confirmation 2012 onwards. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶36

The 2^nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that in the accident, the victim was paid compensation of Rs.11,63,350/-. Therefore, the respondents have incurred loss because of the said accident. Moreover, as per the rules and regulations of the respondent corporation whenever there is an accident, the respondent corporation would seek information to the police personnel. In the present case, the respondent corporation has sent a letter, dated 30.09.2011 to the Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai District, seeking antecedent report for regularization of the petitioner's case. The Superintendent of Police replied vide letter, dated 02.03.2012, informing that a criminal case in Crime No.221 of 2011 was pending. Thereafter, the petitioner's service

¶37

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

¶38

5/9

¶39

W.P.(MD)No.9564 of 2019

¶40

was not regularized on 01.04.2012. Further, the respondent corporation received a letter from the Police informing that the petitioner was acquitted on 15.03.2014 in CC.No.1 of 2013. Therefore, based on the letter, the petitioner's service was regularized on 01.09.2014. Since the petitioner was acquitted in the year 2014, the petitioner's case was considered and he was regularized. Therefore, there is no illegality in granting regularization in the year 2014. Hence, the 2^nd respondent prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶41

5.Heard Mr.P.R.Prithiviraj, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.D.Sivaraman, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the records.

¶42

After hearing the rival submissions this Court has given its anxious consideration. Whenever the service of any candidate ought to be regularized, the respondent corporation would seek clearance

¶43

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

¶44

6/9

¶45

W.P.(MD)No.9564 of 2019

¶46

certificate from the Police personnel. In the present case, when the petitioner was about to be regularized, he had committed accident and was facing criminal proceedings. After acquittal, the respondents have considered the petitioner's case and granted confirmation. However, in the present case the petitioner has not committed any accident due to rash and negligent driving, but the accident had occurred due to tyre burst. Since the respondents did not maintain the bus and the tyre properly the accident had occurred, therefore the present accident cannot be cited to decline regularization from 2012 onwards. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to confirmation from 01.04.2012 and the respondents are directed to grant confirmation from 01.04.2012 along with consequential benefits. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶47

With the above said observation, the writ petition is

¶48

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

¶49

7/9

¶50

W.P.(MD)No.9564 of 2019

¶51

allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Index : Yes / No 06.04.2023 Internet : Yes NCC : Yes / No Tmg

¶52

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

¶53

8/9

¶54

W.P.(MD)No.9564 of 2019

¶55

S.SRIMATHY, J

¶56

Tmg

¶57

W.P.(MD)No.9564 of 2019

¶58

06.04.2023

¶59

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

¶60

9/9

P.Palaniappan v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Palaniappan v. the Managing Director

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

M. Gopala Krishnan Vs the Executive Officer

M.Malarkandan, Vs the Principal Secretary to

Central Board of Trustee, Vs the Presiding Officer

N.Ramakrishnan, Vs S.Prabakar, IAS

I.Salaludeen Ibrahim, Vs the State of Tamilnadu

P.Suganthi, D/O.R.Pandi (Late) Vs the State of Tamil Nadu