Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 2344
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
A. Babu & Ors. – Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. – Respondents
W.P. Nos. 27612, 24258, 24259 of 2016, 27559 to 27561 of 2014 and 19571 to 19573 of 2015 And W.M.P. Nos. 23788, 20731, 20732, 20734 and 20735 of 2016
Decided On : 11-09-2018
For the Petitioner: Mr. T. Sella Pandian for Mr. R. Neelakandan, Mr. T. Sella Pandian for Mr. G. Sankaran, Mr. N.G.R. Prasad for Mr. S. Ramajayam, Mr. T. Sella Pandian for Mr. S. Ramajayam
For the Respondents: Mrs. A. Shrijayanthy, Special Government Pleader, Mr. R. Sivakumar, Mr. T. Ranganathan
The power of relaxation under Rule 37 of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Service Rules, 1970 should be exercised judiciously and sparingly to rectify injustice caused to employees, and should be applied uniformly and equally to all eligible candidates.
Headnote:
Relaxation - Government Employees - Tamil Nadu Municipal Service Rules, 1970, Rule 37 - The court discussed the principles and scope of the power of relaxation under Rule 37 of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Service Rules, 1970. It emphasized the need for uniformity and equality in the exercise of the power of relaxation, and highlighted that the power of relaxation should be exercised judiciously and sparingly to rectify injustice caused to employees. The court also directed the government to review the grant of relaxation to all employees appointed in the cadre of Fitter and to conduct an inquiry into the genuinity of the Degrees obtained by the employees.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioners challenged the relaxation of rules granted to Mr. T. Gnanavel, an Executive Engineer, alleging that the relaxation was granted on extraneous considerations and not uniformly to all employees. Mr. T. Gnanavel's counsel argued that the relaxation was extended to the writ petitioners as well, and the petitions should be rejected due to delay in pursuing remedies.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the relaxation of rules in favor of Mr. T. Gnanavel alone, without considering all similarly placed persons, violated the principle of equality in public employment. It emphasized that the power of relaxation should be exercised judiciously and not in a routine manner. The court directed the government to review the grant of relaxation and conduct an inquiry into the genuinity of the Degrees obtained by the employees.
Issues: The issues before the court included whether the power of relaxation can be exercised to grant appointment/promotion to few individuals in a particular cadre and denying the same to all other similarly placed persons, and what is the scope of the exercise of power of relaxation under the Rules by the Government.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the power of relaxation should be exercised judiciously and sparingly to rectify injustice caused to employees. It emphasized the need for uniformity and equality in the exercise of the power of relaxation and directed the government to review the grant of relaxation and conduct an inquiry into the genuinity of the Degrees obtained by the employees.
Final Decision: The court directed the government to review the grant of relaxation to all employees appointed in the cadre of Fitter and to conduct an inquiry into the genuinity of the Degrees obtained by the employees. It also directed the government to take appropriate action if malpractice or corrupt activities were identified in the grant of relaxation.
The grievances of all the writ petitioners in these writ petitions are that the Government granted relaxation in favour of one Mr. T. Gnanavel, presently working as an Executive Engineer in Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation.
2. The respective learned counsels, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners, emphatically contended that the said Mr. T. Gnanavel, Executive Engineer granted with the relaxation of rules on extraneous considerations. The application, seeking relaxation, was submitted by all the employees, who were initially appointed as Fitters in Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation. When the applications seeking relaxations were submitted uniformly by a set of employees, the benefit of relaxation was extended only in favour of the said Mr. T. Gnanavel, Executive Engineer on extraneous considerations.
3. It is contended on behalf of the writ petitioners that in the event of granting relaxation of rules in favour of the employees, the same should be considered uniformly and equally to all the employees without any discrimination. However, contrary to the settled legal principles, the rule of relaxation was extended in favour of the said Mr. T. Gnanavel alone. By virtue of the rule of relaxation granted by the Government, the said Mr. T. Gnanavel is now promoted to the higher post of Executive Engineer. Aggrieved from and out of such promotions, the other employees, who were appointed as Fitters in Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, filed the present writ petitions citing the similar benefit of relaxation is to be extended to all such similarly placed persons.
4. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. T. Gnanavel, Executive Engineer, opposed the said contention of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners, by stating that no doubt the relaxation was granted in favour of Mr. T. Gnanavel by the Government in respect of the Service Rules for grant of appointment, more specifically, by relaxing the method of appointment.
5. However, such benefit of relaxations were extended to the writ petitioners also. Thus, the writ petitioners cannot make any complaint in respect of grant of relaxation in favour of Mr. T. Gnanavel alone. When the writ petitioners were also enjoyed the benefit of relaxation in the cadre of Assistant Engineer, then they may not have any grievance against the said Mr. T. Gnanavel. Thus, the writ petitions are liable to be rejected.
6. This apart, it is contended that the writ petitioners were not pursued their remedy within the reasonable period of time and there is a huge delay on the part of the writ petitioners in pursuing their remedies. Thus, the writ petitions are liable to be rejected on the ground of laches also. At the outset, the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. T. Gnanavel, represents that it is not as if the benefit of relaxation was granted to his client alone. However, the benefit of relaxation was granted to all other persons enabling them to get promotions.
7. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner in WP No.27559 to 27661 of 2014, opposed the said contentions by stating that the relaxation was granted specifically in favour of the said Mr. T. Gnanavel in G.O.(D).No.448, dated 11.8.1995. However, the relaxations granted is not related to the cadre of Fitters. Thus, the very contention raised in this regard deserves no merit consideration.
8. The question arises before this Court whether the power of relaxation can be exercised by the Government, so as to grant the appointment/promotion to few individuals in the particular cadre and denying the same to all other similarly placed persons.
9. The next question arises before this Court is whether the power of relaxation under the Rules can be exercised in a routine manner without considering the cases of the similarly placed persons. The next question would be that what is the scope of the exercise of power of relaxation under the Rules by the Government.
10. As per Rule 3
