Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice C. SARAVANAN
Petitioner – Appellant
Versus
3rd Respondent – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners’ challenge to imposition of night duty on office assistants (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. respondents’ justification for night duty and staffing difficulties (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. respondents’ legal and administrative arguments supporting the impugned order (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. court acknowledges arguments presented by both sides (Para 13) |
| 5. court analysis on staffing issues and distinction in duties (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. court’s directive to discontinue deputation of office assistants for night duty (Para 18) |
| 7. court’s final order directing filling of watchman posts and case disposal (Para 19) |
ORDER
In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the Circular/Communication dated 08.04.2014 issued by the 3rd Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'Impugned Order'). By the Impugned Order, the 3rd Respondent has directed the Assistant in the Sub Registrar's Office to take over duty as Watchman during Night Shift in addition to working as 'Assistants'. Relevant portion of the Impugned Order dated 08.04.2014 reads as under:-
45(a)(i)The duty of guarding the office during nights shall be distributed between the several peons of a registration office
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
