SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Mad) 1967

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.S. RAMESH, J.
K. Vijayalakshmi – Appellant
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Education Department, St. George Fort, Secretariat, Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 12674 of 2022
Decided On : 21-06-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:S.N. Ravichandran, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 to R5, P. Baladhandayutham, SGP, R5, No Appearance.

Headnote:

Mandamus - Counting Past Service - Duty of Statutory Authority to Consider Representation

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought to count past service as B.T. Assistant in a school and filed a Writ Petition when the representation was not considered.

Finding of the Court:

The Court emphasized the duty of the respondents to consider representations and invoked its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the consideration of the petitioner's representation within a stipulated time.

Issues: Non-consideration of representation by the Statutory Authority and the duty of the Court to invoke its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court highlighted the duty of the Statutory Authority to consider representations and the power of the Court to invoke Article 226 to direct consideration within a stipulated time.

Final Decision: The Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation within four weeks and disposed of the Writ Petition with no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2, to count the past service of the petitioner as B.T. Assistant in the fifth respondent school from 01.06.1995 to 07.12.1997, in the light of G.O.Ms No.217, School Education Department dated 13.05.1997 and consequential proceedings of the second respondent and third respondent vide Na.Ka.No.52003/G3/95, dated 16.05.1997 and vide Na.Ka.No.11569/P4/97, dated 17.07.1997, respectively, with all consequential benefits for the purpose of pension, by reconsidering the order of the third respondent vide O.Mu.No.6515/A1/2007 dated 12.11.2008, based on the representation of the petitioner dated Nil.01.2022.)

1. By consent of both the parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioner herein had given a representation to the respondents on Nil.01.2022, seeking for counting his past service as B.T. Assistant in the fifth respondent school from 01.06.1995 to 07.12.1997, in the light of G.O.Ms No.217, School Education Department dated 13.05.1997 and consequential proceedings of the second respondent and third respondent vide Na.Ka.No.52003/G3/95, dated 16.05.1997 and vide Na.Ka.No.11569/P4/97, dated 17.07.1997, respectively, with all consequential benefits for the purpose of pension, by reconsidering the order of the third respondent vide O.Mu.No.6515/A1/2007 dated 12.11.2008. 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 Nil.01.2022 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, 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 concerned respondent to consider the same on its own merits.

5. With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top