Disposed¶37

P.Chinnavel v. The Managing Director

Madras HC11 Mar 2025WP(MD)/15548/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regularization of service date dispute - Conductor of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd.; 12(3) settlement 240-days permanency claim; regularization sought from June 2011 versus 11.01.2014; accident injuries, MCOP.No.265 of 2011 compensation, alternative employment as Non-ITI Helper pursuant to W.P.(MD)No.10713 of 2012; unactioned representation dated 12.11.2018; mandamus-style direction to consider representation within twelve weeks without adjudicating merits; Article 226; Madurai Bench, single judge M. Jothiraman; disposed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.11.2018 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment, within twelve weeks; writ petition disposed of with no costs. ¶37

P.Chinnavel Vs The Managing Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶37

Issue for consideration

From what date the petitioner's service ought to have been regularized - June 2011 (he having completed 240 days of service on 15.10.2009 under the 12(3) settlement) rather than 11.01.2014 as done by the Corporation. +1 more

¶28

Ratio / Principle

This Court expressly declined to enter into the merits of the regularization dispute and confined itself to issuing a direction to the first respondent regarding the pending representation.

¶36

Key takeaways

The first respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.11.2018 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment, within twelve weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (W.P.(MD)No.15548 of 2019) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, decided on 11.03.2025 by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. Jothiraman). The petitioner, engaged as Conductor by Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd. on 15.10.2008, met with a bus accident on 16.07.2010 caused by the driver's rash and negligent driving, suffered leg injuries and was hospitalised for over 25 days; his claim in MCOP.No.265 of 2011 (Sub Court, Tirunelveli) was allowed. Following disposal of his earlier writ W.P.(MD)No.10713 of 2012 on 02.08.2012 and a Medical Board examination, he was given alternative employment as Non-ITI Helper. Invoking the 12(3) settlement under which employees completing 240 days are treated as permanent (his 240 days completed on 15.10.2009), he sought regularization from June 2011 rather than the 11.01.2014 date fixed by the Corporation, and his representation dated 12.11.2018 to the first respondent lay unactioned. No appearance was made for the respondents. Without going into the merits - expressly so recorded - the Court directed the first respondent to consider the representation dated 12.11.2018 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment, within twelve weeks of receipt of a copy of the order. Writ petition disposed of; no costs.

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.15548 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 11.03.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.15548 of 2019

P.Chinnavel

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Managing Directorate

¶11

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd., K.T.C.Nagar, Tirunelveli-11.

¶12

2.The General Manager Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli)Ltd., Vannarapettai, Tirunelveli-3.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to regularise the petitioner's service with effect from June 2011 with all service benefits, seniority and arrears of back wages and all other consequential attendant benefits as per law on regularised scale from the date on which the petitioner completed probation period of services.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Guhan

¶16

For Respondents : No Appearance

¶17

1/6

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.(MD)No.15548 of 2019

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the

¶22

respondent to regularize the service of the petitioner with effect from June 2011 with all service benefits.

¶23

2.It is the case of the petitioner that he joined as Conductor before

¶24

the respondent Corporation on 15.10.2008. He was continuing the service from the said date. On 16.07.2010, the petitioner was in duty as ? Conductor, at that time, the Driver of the bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner. To that effect, the said bus met with an accident, due to the same, the petitioner suffered from leg injuries. He was admitted in the hospital and he was in-patient for more than 25 days. He filed MCOP.No.265 of 2011 on the file of the Sub Court, Tirunelveli seeking compensation and the same is allowed in his favour. Due to his disability caused in the accident, he was unable to work. He had chosen to file a writ petition before this Court in W.P.(MD)No.10713 of 2012 seeking direction to provide alternative employment. The said writ petition was disposed on 02.08.2012. In pursuance of the direction given in the said writ petition, he appeared before the Medical Board for

¶25

2/6

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.(MD)No.15548 of 2019

¶28

examination. On the basis of the medical certificate issued by the Medical Board, the respondent Corporation have provided alternative employment as Non-ITI Helper. As per 12(3) settlement, the employees, who have been completed 240 days, treated as permanent employees. Originally, the petitioner was appointed on 15.10.2008 as Conductor and he has completed 240 days on 15.10.2009 itself. The respondent Corporation have chosen to regularize his job from 11.01.2014 instead of regularizing from June 2011. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 12.11.2018 before the first respondent seeking for regularization from June 2011. The said representation is still pending before the first respondent. Hence, the writ petition.

¶29

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that as per 12(3) Settlement, the employees, who have been completed 240 days, treated as permanent employees. The petitioner was appointed on 15.10.2008 as Conductor and he has completed 240 days of service on 15.10.2009 itself. However, the respondent Corporation wrongly regularized only from 11.01.2014. The respondent Corporation ought to have regularized the service from June 2011. He would submit that due accident occurred while he was in service, he was provided alternative

¶30

3/6

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(MD)No.15548 of 2019

¶33

employment and the respondents are duty bound to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner.

¶34

4.No one appeared on behalf of the respondents.

¶35

5.It is seen from the records that the representation dated

¶36

12.11.2018 sent to the first respondent, to that effect postal acknowledgment receipt has also annexed in the typed-set of papers. Without going into the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to issue a direction to the first respondent. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merit of the matter. The first respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.11.2018 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, if there is no any legal impediment, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶37

6.With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No

¶38

costs.

¶39

NCC : Yes / No 11.03.2025 Index : Yes / No gns

¶40

4/6

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.(MD)No.15548 of 2019