Disposed

M.Muniyasamy v. The Secretary to the Government

Madras HC3 Jun 2024WP(MD)/11539/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Five daily-wage sweepers with over 18 years' service at Sayalkudi Town Panchayat sought regularization per G.O.(Ms)No.242 dated 10.12.2009 through unaddressed representations. The court directed the Secretary to Government and District Collector to consider the 2020 representation on its merits and pass orders within eight weeks, without examining the claim's merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents 1 and 3 to consider petitioners' representation dated 20.02.2020 per G.O.(Ms)No.242 (10.12.2009) and pass orders within eight weeks; no costs.

M.Muniyasamy Vs The Secretary to the Government — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

WP(MD) No.11539 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 03.06.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA W.P.(MD) No.11539 of 2024

¶6

1.M.Muniyasamy 2.K.Arumugam

¶7

3.M.Karuppasamy 4.V.Murugavel 5.M.Gurusamy ... Petitioners

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Secretary to the Government, Department of Municipal Administration, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

¶10

1/8

¶11

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

¶12

WP(MD) No.11539 of 2024

¶13

2.The Director of Town Panchayat,

¶14

Chennai.

¶15

3.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District,

¶16

Ramanathapuram.

¶17

4.The Commissioner

¶18

Sayalkudi Town Panchayat, Sayalkudi,

¶19

Ramanathapuram District.

¶20

5.The Executive Officer

¶21

Sayalkudi Town Panchayat,

¶22

Sayalkudi,

¶23

Ramanathapuram District.

¶24

...Respondents

¶25

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

¶26

India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners in the post

¶27

2/8

¶28

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

¶29

WP(MD) No.11539 of 2024

¶30

of Sweepers by considering their length of service of 18 years under

¶31

the 4^th and 5^th respondents Town Panchayat based on the representation of the petitioners dated 21.06.2011 and 20.02.2020 in the light of the G.O.(Ms)No.242 dated 10.12.2009 issued by the

¶32

1^st respondent.

¶33

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Prahalad Ravi

¶34

For Respondents : Mr.M.Ramesh – for R1 to R4

¶35

Government Advocate Mr.G.Suriya Anand – for R5 Additional Government Pleader

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The present writ petition has been filed seeking a Writ

¶38

of Mandamus to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners in the post of Sweepers by considering their length of service of 18 years under the 4^th and 5^th respondents Town

¶39

3/8

¶40

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

¶41

WP(MD) No.11539 of 2024

¶42

Panchayat based on the representation of the petitioners dated 21.06.2011 and 20.02.2020 in the light of the G.O.(Ms)No.242 dated 10.12.2009 issued by the 1^st respondent.

¶43

2 . Heard Mr.B.Prahalad Ravi, learned counsel for the

¶44

petitioner, Mr.M.Ramesh, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.G.Suriya Anand, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the fifth respondent.

¶45

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

¶46

4 . The petitioners have been working as Sweepers at the respondents Town Panchayat for more than 18 years and they have been given daily wages. Therefore, the petitioners herein had given representations to the respondents on 21.06.2011 and 20.02.2020 seeking to consider their services and regularising them in a time

¶47

4/8

¶48

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

¶49

WP(MD) No.11539 of 2024

¶50

scale of pay. Since the said representations were not considered by

¶51

the respondents so far, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶52

5 . It is needless to point out that whenever a

¶53

representation of this nature is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon the respondents 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. The failure on the part of the authority had prompted the petitioner to file this petition for seeking relief through issuance of Writ of Mandamus. As the petitioner has made out a case for invoking the extraordinary powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the respondents are required to be given with a direction to consider the representation of the petitioner within a specified time frame.

¶54

5/8

¶55

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

¶56

WP(MD) No.11539 of 2024

¶57

6 . In the light of the above observations, there shall be a

¶58

direction to the respondents 1 and 3 herein to consider the petitioners' representation dated 20.02.2020 in the light of the G.O. (Ms)No.242 dated 10.12.2009 issued by the first respondent, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claim of the petitioner and it is open to the respondents 1 and 3 to consider the same on its own merits.

¶59

7 . With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands

¶60

disposed of . No costs.

¶61

03.06.2024 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No RM

¶62

6/8

¶63

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

¶64

WP(MD) No.11539 of 2024

¶65

¶66

1.The Secretary to the Government, Department of Municipal Administration, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

¶67

2.The Director of Town Panchayat, Chennai.

¶68

3.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

¶69

4.The Commissioner Sayalkudi Town Panchayat, Sayalkudi, Ramanathapuram District.

¶70

5.The Executive Officer Sayalkudi Town Panchayat, Sayalkudi, Ramanathapuram District.

¶71

7/8

¶72

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

¶73

WP(MD) No.11539 of 2024

¶74

R.N.MANJULA, J.

¶75

¶76

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.11539 of 2024

¶77

Dated: 03.06.2024

¶78

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

¶79

8/8

M.Muniyasamy v. The Secretary to the Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Muniyasamy v. The Secretary to the Government

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

S.Rabik Raja Vs The Assistant Commercial Manager /

M.Niruba Vs Directorate of Medical Education and Research

R.Rajendran Vs The District Collector

K.Kaliappan Vs The Assistant Commissioner

Regunathan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Devangar Girls Higher Secondary School Vs The Director of School Education