← Library
Madras High CourtWP/6440/2021rejected

T.Madaiyan v. The District Collector

2021-03-15Honourable Mr Justice S. Vaidyanathan3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 15.03.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN W.P.No.6440 of 2021 (Heard through VC) T.Madaiyan .. Petitioner -vs1.The District Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.

2.The Block Development Officer, Block Development Office, Pennagaram Union, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District.

.. Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in proceedings Na.Ka.No.1456/2020/Aa4 dated 09.09.2020 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and to direct the respondents to pay full salary and back wages, Dearness Allowance and 4 years bonus and other attendant benefits for the period from 16.09.2011 to 09.07.2015 to the petitioner herein. For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Annagandhi For Respondents : Mrs.P.Rajalakshmi Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition challenging the order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.1456/2020/Aa4 dated 09.09.2020 and consequential direction to the respondents to pay full salary and back wages, Dearness Allowance and 4 years bonus and other attendant benefits for the period from 16.09.2011 to 09.07.2015 to him.

2. Mrs.P.Rajalakshmi, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents.

3. By consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

4. The petitioner is challenging the proceedings dated 09.09.2020 on the ground that the petitioner has not been paid all benefits due to him from 16.09.2011 to 09.07.2015 inspite of the orders of this Court in M.P.No.1 of 2011 in W.P.No.27168 of 2011 dated 24.11.2011. The second respondent by impugned order dated 09.09.2020 has rejected the request of the petitioner in Demand No.1 stating that after the interim order passed by this Court on 24.11.2011, the first respondent vide its proceedings in Na.Ka.No.10866/2011/ex1, dated 21.12.2011 has directed the petitioner to report for work. But, the petitioner did not report for work and hence, he would not be entitled to wages as requested by him vide his application dated 21.07.2020 and on the principle of 'No Work No Pay', the petitioner would not be entitled to wages for 43 months, i.e., from 21.12.2011 to 09.07.2015, for which, he has not reported for work.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the communication of the first respondent dated 07.07.2015 to state that in view of the communication, the petitioner was asked to report for work immediately after the orders of this Court. The impugned order dated 21.12.2011 directing the petitioner to report for work has not been communicated to him.

6. In the present impugned order, especially in Reference No.4, the Collector's communication in Na.Ka.No.25007/11/sx-1 dated 21.12.2011 has been referred to and it has categorically stated that though the petitioner was asked to report for work, he has not reported for work and that the petitioner was transferred to some other place. It is not known as to why the petitioner has made a communication only after his retirement and not before that. Even the petitioner's mercy petition dated 11.12.2017 would make it very clear that the petitioner has been duly communicated vide letter dated 21.12.2011, which is found in the inner page of his communication, annexed in the typedset of papers at Page No.9.

7. Though it has been stated that the order has not been complied with, which amounts to Contempt of Court, the fact that the petitioner has received the communication as early as in 2011 and kept quiet for the reasons best known to him and is now trying to get the benefit after the retirement and claiming wages for 43 months, cannot be justified and the respondents are perfectly justified in rejecting the request of the petitioner.

8. I find no merits in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-VII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rsi To 1.The District Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.

2.The Block Development Officer, Block Development Office, Pennagaram Union, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District.

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.16909 W.P.No.6440 of 2021 SKY(CO) RV(15/07/2021)