Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU
S. Nagaraj
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Animal Husbandry & Fisheries Dept., Secretariat, Chennai & Others
W.P.No.28103 of 2006 & (O.A.No.343 of 1997)
Decided On : 30-09-2009
Repatriation - Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal - Tamilnadu Secretariat Service Rules, Rule 4(4)(iii), Rule 3(a) - The judgment discussed the application of Rule 4(4)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service Rules and Rule 3(a) in the context of the petitioner's repatriation to the parent department. The court emphasized the petitioner's permanent appointment and lack of lien over the parent department, ruling in favor of the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to set aside an order relieving him from the post of Assistant Section officer in the Governors Secretariat and to direct the respondents to retain him with all monetary and service benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's appointment was made in terms of statutory rules, and he had been permanently appointed to the Secretariat Service, thus ruling in favor of the petitioner.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's repatriation to the parent department and the application of Tamilnadu Secretariat Service Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the petitioner's permanent appointment and lack of lien over the parent department, ruling in favor of the petitioner.
Final Decision: The writ petition stands allowed with no order as to costs.
Heard both sides.
2. This writ petition arises out of O.A.No.343 of 1997 filed before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal. The said OA was filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the order of the second respondent dated 211. 1996 and consequently to direct the respondents to retain the applicant in the Governors Secretariat Office, Raj Bhavan, Chennai with all monetary and service benefits.
3. The Original Application was admitted and pending the Original Application, the Tribunal granted an interim order dated 24.01.997, staying the impugned proceedings. The said order was directed to be continued until further orders by a subsequent order of the Tribunal.
4. By the impugned order dated 211. 1996, the second respondent relieved the petitioner from the post of Assistant Section officer (ASO), Governors Secretariat and directed to report before the Director of Animal Husbandry, Chennai -6.
5. The facts leading to the case of the petitioner are as follows:
1. The petitioners name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange and he was appointed as a Steno-typist in the Animal Husbandry Department on 01.08.1983. His services were regularised in the said post and he had also satisfactorily completed his probation on 25.06.1986. By a circular issued by the second respondent dated 01.09.1987, volunteers were called for appointment to the post of Assistant by recruitment by transfer from among the Junior Assistants/Personal Clerks eligible for appointment as Junior Assistant in the Tamilnadu Ministerial Service. The petitioner opted for the said post. Therefore, by proceedings dated 04.02.1988, the petitioner, who was Acting Steno-Typist under the Directorate of Animal Husbandry was appointed as Acting Assistant in the second respondents Secretariat on transfer, in terms of Rule 4 (4)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service Rules with effect from 21.01.1988. He was also sent for Foundational Training Examination in the XIV batch from 29.08.1988 to 02.09.1988 at the Secretariat Training Institute. The petitioner was also promoted as Officiating Assistant Section Officer by an order dated 27.03.1989. Subsequently, his pay in the post of Assistant Section Officer was fixed in terms of the pay fixation order.
2. The petitioner was also allotted a quarters inside the Raj Bhavan, by proceedings dated 010. 1989. He was also sent for further in-service training during February 1990. His scale of pay was also revised by a further proceedings dated 16.07.1991 and he was given appropriate increment. On 010. 1994, the petitioner was posted to act as Personal Clerk to the Deputy Secretary to Governor in the cadre of Assistant Section Officer. When the Section Officer in the Governors Secretariat by name, P.Thankaraj got reverted to his parent department, the petitioner was directed to take over the charge from P.Thankaraj.
3. The petitioner by his letter dated 010. 1996, addressed to the second respondent requested them to consider him for promotion to the post of Private Secretary to the second respondent or his post should be upgraded as a Section Officer. It transpires that His Excellency, the Governor of Tamilnadu also made a note endorsement on the said representation. For reasons best known, within few days after the said representation, the petitioner was reverted to his so called parent department.
6. The petitioner was given a posting order by the Director of Animal Husbandry, vide posting order dated 30.11.1996 in the post of Steno-Typist. The Director of Animal Husbandry, by his proceedings dated 112. 1996 addressed to the second respondent stated that there is no post of Steno-Typist available at Chennai and therefore, his claim may be considered in the Governors Secretariat.
7. It was thereafter the petitioner moved the Tribunal seeking to set aside the impugned order and the consequential reversion in the Governors Secretariat. The Tribunal granted an interim order dated 24.01.1997 staying the operation of t
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
