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

JOSEPHINE JEYASHANTHI – Appellant
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU – Respondent
WP 7631/2014



Advocates:
['M/S P VIJENDRAN', '', 'V CHITHRA', 'G SARAVANAKUMAR', 'R AMBUROSH', 'M/S P GODSON SWAMINATH', '', 'GOVT PLEADER FOR']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATE : 22.12.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

W.P. NO.7631 of 2014

Josephine Jeyashanthi

...Petitioner

- Vs -

1.Government of Tamilnadu,

Rep. By its Chief Secretary,

Chennai.

2.The Loyola College,

Rep.by its Secretary and Correspondent,

Rev. Dr.M.Albert William, S.J.,

Chennai 600 034.

...Respondents

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India praying this Court to issue a writ of Certiorarified

Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned

order Ref. No.L.C-2014/140, dated 28.02.2014 issued by the 2nd

respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the

respondent to ensure proper implementation of the Sexual

Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and

Redressal) Act, 2013 including to reinstatement of the

petitioner with all attendant benefits, within the time frame

that may be fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Vijay

For Respondents: Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, Spl.G.P for R1

: Mr. P.Godson Swaminathan for R2

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this writ petition, to call for the

records pertaining to the impugned order Ref. No.L.C-2014/140,

dated 28.02.2014 issued by the 2nd respondent, quash the same and

consequently direct the respondent to ensure proper

implementation of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace

(Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 including to

reinstatement of the petitioner with all attendant benefits,

within the time frame that may be fixed by this Court.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as

Lecturer in the 2nd respondent college in the department of Media

Arts for a period of two years by the Secretary of the College

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Management Committee by order dated 14.06.2006. Thereafter,

again on 13.06.2007, she was appointed in the capacity of

Lecturer in the Department of Tamil in the same College and the

same was confirmed on 01.08.2009. As per the appointment order

dated 14.06.2008, after completion of two years of service the

contract of her service would be renewed for a further period of

5 years until the age of her retirement as specified by the

Government and the College Management Committee shall have the

right to discharge her without assigning any reasons after a

month's notice or a month's salary in lieu thereof. However, the

management, being satisfied with her performance, confirmed her

service with effect from 01.08.2009 by order dated 01.08.2009.

It is the averment of the petitioner that she got separated from

her husband and is living alone with her son. While she has

been discharging her service peacefully, in the year 2008, one

S.A.Rajarajan was appointed as Head of the Department of Tamil,

in which he was working as Lecturer and after being posted as

Head of Department, the said person started harassing her

mentally with malafide intention of receiving sexual favour from

her. Due to unbearable harassment, she made a complaint against

the said S.A.Rajarajan to the 2nd respondent management. On

receipt of the complaint, the 2nd respondent college conducted an

enquiry as against the said Rajarajan and imposed a punishment

of censure as against the HOD and, thereafter, without assigning

any reason, the service of the petitioner was terminated by

invoking clause 7 of the appointment order. Challenging the same

the present writ petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

admittedly the petitioner was subjected to sexual harassment

caused by the HOD viz., Rajarajan, and after detailed enquiry,

the charge against the said HOD having been established, the

said Rajarajan and imposed a punishment of censure. For the

same charges, the petitioner has also made a complaint before

the law enforcing agency and in that regard, the Secretary of

t

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