Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.S. RAMESH, J.
C. Rosily – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Secretary to Government, School Educational Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P.No. 6379 of 2023
Decided On : 02-03-2023
Mandamus - Regularization of Service - The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation for regularization of service in the post of Scavenger and pass appropriate orders within a stipulated time, emphasizing the duty of the respondents to consider such representations and the court's power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to intervene.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought regularization of service in the post of Scavenger and all associated benefits through a representation to the respondents, which was not considered, leading to the filing of the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation in accordance with the relevant departmental order and pass appropriate orders within four weeks, without expressing any views on the merits of the petitioner's claim.
Issues: Non-consideration of representation by Statutory Authority, duty of respondents to consider representations, and the court's power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The duty of respondents to consider representations on their merits and pass appropriate orders, and the court's power to intervene under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in case of dereliction of duty by the respondents.
Final Decision: The court ordered the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation for regularization of service and associated benefits within four weeks, without expressing any views on the merits of the claim.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner post of Scavenger from the date of initial appointment on 25.03.1987 and to grant all the service and monetary benefits to the petitioner.)
With the consent of both the parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
2. The petitioner herein had given a representation to the respondents on 18.05.2022, seeking for regularization of his service in the post of Scavenger, together with all service and monetary benefits. Since the said representation was not considered, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. It is needless to point out that whenever a 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 and hence, this Court will be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India and direct them to consider the same within a stipulated time.
4. In the light of the above observations, there shall be a direction to the respondents herein to consider the petitioner-s representation dated 18.05.2022, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.111, School Education Department, dated 09.05.2012, and pass appropriate orders, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any of its views with regard to the merits of the claim of the petitioner and that it is open to the respondents to consider the same on its own merits.
5. With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands ordered. No costs.
The duty of respondents to consider representations on their merits and the court's power to intervene under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in case of dereliction of duty.
A Writ of Mandamus may be issued to direct authorities to consider and pass orders on a representation seeking service regularization where such representation has remained unaddressed, without the C....
The Court directed the respondent to consider pending representations for regularization of services within a specified time frame despite inaction over three years.
Judicial intervention is warranted to ensure timely consideration of employee grievances in public employment contexts.
The Court directs the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation for service regularization, emphasizing adherence to previous court orders.
A Writ of Mandamus can be issued to compel official action on pending representations.
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
