Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. HARIPARANTHAMAN
R. Chandrasekar
Versus
The Director of Rural Development, Chennai & Others
W.P.No.46114 of 2006 (O.A.No.3956 of 2000)
Decided On : 03-11-2010
G.O.Ms.No.1046 - Employment Dispute - G.O.Ms.No.1619/R.D.&LA Department dated 22.08.1970, G.O.Ms.No.1046 P&AR Department dated 13.11.1987, Tamil Nadu Civil Services(Discipline and Appeal) Rules - The court discussed the appointment of Engineering Supervisors, the petitioner's leave, the impugned order, and the legal provisions invoked. The court found the impugned order based on G.O.Ms.No.1046 to be illegal and directed regularisation of the petitioner's services until retirement.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Engineering Supervisor, was removed from service after being on leave for more than four years. The impugned order was based on G.O.Ms.No.1046. The petitioner sought reinstatement and filed a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The impugned order was found to be illegal as the petitioner was on sanctioned leave and the G.O.Ms.No.1046 had been set aside by the Tribunal. The court directed regularisation of the petitioner's services until retirement.
Issues: The issues included the legality of the impugned order, the petitioner's leave, and the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.1046.
Ratio Decidendi: The impugned order was based on an illegal provision, and the petitioner's leave was sanctioned. The court directed regularisation of the petitioner's services until retirement.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned orders were quashed. The fourth respondent was directed to regularise the petitioner's services until retirement.
1. With an object to maintain and run the Rock Blasting Unit and other units purchased from the general fund of the Panchayat Union in accordance with the directions issued in G.O.Ms.No.1619/R.D.&LA Department dated 22.08.1970, the second respondent, the District Collector of Salem, has appointed five persons including the petitioner as Agricultural Engineering Supervisors in various panchayat unions in Salem District by order dated 21.11.1970. The petitioner was appointed as an Engineering Supervisor in the third respondent Panchayat Union. The nomenclature of the post was changed as Junior Engineer (Agricultural Engineering) with effect from 07.12.1970. Periodically, the post was sanctioned originally from 08.12.1971 to 31.07.1981 and subsequently from 01.08.1980 to 31.03.1982 by the Deputy Collector based on the proposals of the Panchayat Union Commissioner, Kabilarmalai. The petitioner worked for more than 16 years. He applied for leave from 09.07.1986 to 30.06.1991 on various occasions. He was granted leave up to 16.05.1987 with wages and he was granted leave on loss of pay from 17.05.1987 to 30.06.1991. He applied for posting on 01.07.1991 after availing leave for four years seven months and 26 days. Since no order was passed on his request to permit him to join duty, he sent a reminder dated 10.01.1992. More so, the third respondent passed the impugned order dated 13.02.1992 removing the petitioner from service with effect from 05.11.1986 invoking G.O.Ms.No.1046 Personal and Administrative Reforms (E.R.III) Department dated 13.11.1987. It is also alleged that G.O.Ms.No.1046 was invoked as he was on leave for more than four years.
2. The petitioner sent representations dated 24.02.1992, 23.04.1992, 03.06.1992 and 27.04.1993 to the second respondent requesting to reinstate him into service and to permit him to join duty. Based on his representations, the Inspection Officer, office of the District Collector, Salem District, instructed the petitioner to appear on 08.09.1995 for hearing his appeal. He was directed to produce the appointment order and other relevant documents at the time of hearing the appeal. Accordingly, he appeared before the Inspection Officer along with the relevant records on 08.09.1995, but no order was passed. Since no order was passed by the second respondent, the petitioner sent another representation dated 17.04.1996 to the first respondent, the Director of Rural Development requesting to reinstate him in service. As the first respondent passed an order on 17.09.1999 rejecting his request and confirming the order of the third respondent dated 13.02.1992 and the first respondent also noted that the action under G.O.Ms.No.1046 P&AR Department dated 13.11.1987 is in order, left with no alternative, the petitioner filed O.A.No.3956 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal to quash the orders dated 13.02.1992 of the third respondent and dated 17.09.1999 of the first respondent and to reinstate him with all benefits. After abolition of the Tribunal, the same has been transferred and renumbered as W.P.No.46114 of 2006. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. The 2nd respondent filed reply affidavit refuting the allegations. The 2nd respondent stated that the petitioner was on leave from 09.07.1986 to 30.06.1991 with pay or on loss of pay. It is stated that the Collector sanctioned posts only upto 31.03.1982. The post to which the petitioner was appointed was a temporary one. The third respondent has passed resolution on 11.12.1987 removing the petitioner from service as the need of the service was exhausted. Based on the said resolution, a proposal for removing the petitioner from service was sent to the second respondent. The second respondent passed an order dated 31.12.1991 instructing the third respondent to remove the petitioner from service based on the resolution. The third respondent issued the order dated 13.02.1992 removing the petitioner from service relying on G.O.Ms.No.
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
