BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 25.07.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA W.P.(MD)No.17577 of 2024 R.Narayanasamy ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Commissioner, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai-15.

2.The District Collector, Dindigul District.

3.The Block Development Officer, Oddanchathiram Taluk, Dindigul District.

4.The President, Jogipatti Village Panchayat, Oddanchathiram Taluk, Dindigul District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to disburse 5 months's salary to the petitioner based on the G.O.Ms.No.63, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E5) Department dated 22.05.2012 and also to disburse all the monetary benefits from the date of suspension to disbanding of Makkal Nala Paniyalar Post (i.e.,) 29.11.2010 to 08.11.2011 with 5% interest by considering petitioner's representation dated 19.07.2023.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Balakrishnan for Mr.K.P.Narayankumar For R1 & R2 : Mr.J.Ashok Additional Government Pleader For R3 & R4 : Mr.T.Amjadkhan Government Advocate

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to disburse 5 months's salary to the petitioner based on the G.O.Ms.No.63, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E5) Department dated 22.05.2012 along with all the monetary benefits from the date of suspension to disbanding of Makkal Nala Paniyalar Post (i.e.,) 29.11.2010 to 08.11.2011 with

5% interest by considering petitioner's representation dated 19.07.2023.

2.Heard Mr.A.Balakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.J.Ashok, learned Additional Government Pleader for the first and second respondents and Mr.T.Amjadkhan, learned Government Advocate for the third and fourth respondents.

3.The petitioner is said to have been appointed as Makal Nala Paniyalar in pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.496, dated 02.09.1989. On 01.12.2010, he was suspended from service in view of his detention in prison for more than 48 hours in a criminal case. In the meanwhile, another Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.86 dated 08.11.2011 came to be passed for disbanding the scheme itself. Subsequently all the persons, those who have been appointed as Makkal Nala Paniyalarkal, have been relieved from service on 08.11.2011. The petitioner has not been served with any relieving order. He made a representation to the second respondent on 31.05.2012, which was replied by stating that since the petitioner was kept under suspension, the relieving order was not served upon him.

4.In the meantime, the employees under Makkal Nala Paniyalarkal Scheme had challenged the Government order in G.O.Ms.No.86 dated 08.11.2011, through which, the scheme itself was disbanded by way of filing a writ petition before this Court. In the said writ petition, the Government has given an undertaking that they are ready to give five months salary to the employees under the Scheme. In this regard, a government order in G.O.Ms.No.36, dated 22.05.2012 has also been issued for granting 5 months salary to all the Makkal Nala Paniyalargal. Since the petitioner has not been granted with the said salary for the period of five months, along with salary for the period under which, he was kept under suspension between 01.12.2010 to 08.11.2011, he had given a representation to the third respondent. since the same was not considered, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction.

5.The learned Additional Government Pleader for the first and second respondents submitted that the petitioner is a contractual employee and hence, he is not entitled to any relief as claimed.

6.The fact in issue does not relate to the status of the petitioner as to whether he is a regular employee of the Government or the contractual employee. The fact remains that he has been employed under the Makkal Nala Paniyalarkal Scheme and it was in force until 08.11.2011, on which date the scheme