The Director v. G.L.Gracy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 22.09.2021 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN Writ Appeal No.966 of 2021 1.

The Director, The Joint Director, The Principal, District Institute of Education and Training (DIET), Kaliyampoondi, Kanchipuram District 603 402.

... Appellants/1 to 3 Respondents vs.

1.

G.L.Gracy ...1st Respondent/Petitioner The Correspondent, Gnananodhya Teacher Training Institute, No.1/60, Polwells Road, St Thomas Mount, Chennai 600 016.

... 2nd Respondent/4th Respondent Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 28.10.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.No.11017 of 2020.

Prayer in W.P.No.11017 of 2020 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the 3rd respondent made in Na.Ka.No.254/A7/2000 dated 20.05.2020 to quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents 1to 4 to forthwith approve the appointment of the petitioner as Junior Assistent w.e.f. 04.01.1999 and to extend all benefits including arrears of wages revision of

respective pay scales, retiral benefits, pension and other pensioary benefits.

For Appellants :

Mr.K.V.Sajeevkumar, Government Advocate For 1st Respondent :

Mr.L.Chandrakumar

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court delivered by S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.) The present Appeal has been preferred challenging the order dated 28.10.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.11017 of 2020.

Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Appellants contended that, the Writ Petitioner, who is the 1st Respondent herein, was only a Librarian and that, she did not discharge her work as a Junior Assistant. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that, there was a ban with regard to recruitment from the year 2001 till 2006 and that, the Writ Petitioner has discharged her work as a Junior Assistant from 01.06.2006. Secondly, it has been contended by the learned Government Advocate that, there is an enormous delay on the part of the Writ Petitioner in approaching this Court and on that score, the Writ Petition ought to have been dismissed.

Learned counsel appearing for the 1st Respondent contended that, as per the appointment order issued to the 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner, she was discharging her duty as a Junior Assistant from 04.01.1999 and there have been repeated representations to the Government from the Management with regard to approval of her appointment in the post of Junior Assistant and the same has been approved only on 14.03.2013, just 45 days prior to the date of her retirement on 30.04.2013. He went on to state that, the ban on recruitment, as contended by the Appellants, may not be applicable to the facts of this case, as the Writ Petitioner was appointed much prior to the ban, in the year 2001. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the Writ Petition was rightly allowed by the learned Single Judge, and the same need not be disturbed.

4.

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record.

5.

Admittedly, the Writ Petitioner was appointed on 04.01.1999 as a Junior Assistant in the 2nd Respondent/School, which is a minority Institution. No Executive Order can deprive the benefits due to the staff employed in minority Institutions,

where the Statutory Regulation does not provide for such requirement or stipulation. That apart, the Writ Petitioner was initially appointed on 04.01.1999 and it was not during the period of ban and that, the ban on recruitment has nothing to do with the approval that was granted to the Writ Petitioner. The Writ Petitioner was appointed in the regular vacancy and the learned Single Judge, after going through the supportive materials including the records that were furnished before him, came to the conclusion that, the Writ Petitioner's appointment need to be approved without any restriction, with effect from 04.01.1999.

6.

Hence, we find that, the order of the learned Single Judge setting aside the impugned order dated 20.05.2020, insofar as it restricts the benefit of approval only from 14.03.2013 till the date of retirement on 30.04.2013, need not be interfered with.

7.

Though, there is much force in the contention of the learned Government Advocate appearing for the Appellants that, there is delay on the part of the Writ Petitioner in approaching this Court, we make it clear that, for the terminal benefits that may be granted to the 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner, interest need not be paid.

8.

Time granted by the learned Single Judge to the official Respondents therein, is extended by three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In fine, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P.No.5987 of 2021 is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-VII) //True copy// Sub Assistant Registrar (vm/aeb) To 1.

The Director,

The Joint Director, The Principal, District Institute of Education and Training (DIET), Kaliyampoondi, Kanchipuram District 603 402.

+1cc to Mr.L.Chandrakumar, Advocate SR.No.48903 +1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.49448 W.A.No.966 of 2021 CP(CO) GMY(18/10/2021)