IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED ON

10.06.2024 25.06.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU Writ Appeal No.862 of 2022 K.Baskaran ... Appellant Vs

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Secretary to the Government Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries Department, Secretrate, Fort Saint George, Chennai – 600 009.

2.The Director of Fisheries, Theynampet, Chennai – 600 006.

3.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd., 485, MTB Building, 6th Floor, Anna Salai, Nandhanam, Chennai – 600 035. … Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent to set aside the order dated 09.12.2020 made in W.P.No.28064 of 2013 and pass such further order.

For Appellant : Mr.S.Shanmuganandan For RR1 & 2 : Mr.Bindran Additional Government Pleader For R3 : Mr.R.Kumaravel Additional Government Pleader

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by Mr.K.KUMARESH BABU.,J.)

This Intra-Court Appeal had been preferred by the unsuccessful petitioner, wherein his claim for a Mandamus to consider his case for the salary of Skipper and consequential benefits has been negatived by the learned Single Judge.

2. Heard Mr.S.Shanmuganandan, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.Bindran, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first and second respondents and Mr.R.Kumaravel, learned Additional Government Pleader for the third respondent.

3. Mr.S.Shanmuganandan, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the appellant was appointed as Sub-inspector of Fisheries in the second respondent Department. He had also acquired a certificate of competency as fishing second hand and therefore he was posted as Bosun. On his willingness his services were utilised by the third respondent on deputation basis. He would claim that the appellant was appointed as a Skipper that is by giving one stage promotion in the year 1984 but no monetary benefits were given to him as Skipper and he had been only paid the salary of the Bosun. He was repatriated to the parent department and he had attained the age of superannuation in the year 1998. Since he had been denied his salary as Skipper, he had been making repeated representations to the second and third respondents, however, left without any remedy, he had approached this Court seeking for a Mandamus to consider his claim. However, the learned single Judge without appreciating the case of the petitioner had rejected the Writ Petition solely on the ground of delay and latches by holding that the petitioner had approached this Court with a delay of 15 years after his superannuation. He would submit that the lawful claim of the appellant, who having been worked as a Skipper, has been negatived without considering the case on merits and therefore, he would seek interference with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge.

4. Countering his arguments, Mr.Bindran, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first and second respondents would submit that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge as the appellant had superannuated in the year 1998 and had only approached this Court only in the year 2013. He would further contend that the case of the petitioner was rejected by the first respondent as early as in the year 2011 which has also been intimated to the appellant by the third respondent in its communication dated 22.08.2012. In spite of such communication, the appellant without challenging the said communication, had approached this Court seeking for a Mandamus. On that ground itself the claim of the appellant is liable to be rejected. He would further submit that the pay and allowances of a Skipper was in a higher grade of pay than the post of Bosun which the appellant had held and that there was no specific order passed by the third respondent asking him to work as a Skipper. He had only continued to work as a Bosun under t