S.Mani v. The Vice-Chancellor
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN W.P.No.21660 of 2023 S. Mani .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Vice-Chancellor, University of Madras, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
2. The Registrar, University of Madras, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
...Respondents
Prayer: This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner in the University of Madras, with all consequential benefits thereon, within a time frame and pass orders. For Petitioner : Mr.P. Raja For Respondents : Mrs.V.Sudha, SC 1/6
ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner in the University of Madras, with all consequential benefits thereon, within a time frame and pass orders.
2.The facts of the case is that the petitioner joined in the University of Madras as Office Assistant on 01.01.2003 and his services were extended from time to time, for every ninety days and his salary is paid on consolidated basis. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has rendered 20 years of service in the University of Madras in various Departments. The sum and substance of the case is that the services of the petitioner was not regularised till date and he is deprived of all the monetary benefits and also the other benefits, including promotion to higher posts, due to which he has made a representation to the first respondent on 18.06.2012. However, there was no progress in the said representation till date, which has given rise to this petition. 2/6
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after filing of the writ petition, the respondents have terminated the services of the petitioner, due to which he is facing difficulty to run his family. He further submitted that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner of the family. He also submitted that the petitioner has rendered 20 years of service and he is entitled for regularization of service and all other benefits but the same has been deprived, due to reasons best known to the respondents. Hence, prays to allow this petition.
4. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents sought time to get instructions from the syndicate and this Court also granted time and was ready to adjourn the matter. At that time the standing counsel submitted that it was not possible to get oral instructions and the matter had to be placed before the syndicate committee and it would require more than 15 days to get the order passed on the petitioner's representation.
3/6
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Before adverting further it is just and necessary to go through the services rendered by the petitioner and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
Year Place of Service Period of Service Institute of Distance Education 5 months 2003-2004 Department of Jainology 8 months 2004-2005 Institute of Distance Education Auditorium 8 months 2005-2006 University Auditorium 10 months 2006-2007 Institute of Distance Education 8 months 2007-2008 Department of Jainology Institute of Distance Education 10 months 2008-2009 Department of Jainology & Auditorium & (IDE) 10 months 2009-2010 Department of Jainology 1 year 2010-2011 Department of Jainology 1 year 2011-2012 Department of Jainology 1 year 2012-2013 Department of Jainology 1year 2013-2014 Department of Jainology 1year 2014-2015 Department of Jainology 1year 2015-2016 Department of Jainology 1year 2016-2017 Department of Jainology 1year 2017-2018 Department of Jainology 1year 2018-2019 Department of Jainology 1year 2020-2021 Department of Jainology 1year 2021-2022 Department of Jainology 1year 2022-2023 Department of Jainology 1year 4/6
7.On a perusal of records, it is seen that the petitioner has rendered more than 20 years of service and he has not been regularised and after filing of the writ petition he has been terminated from the services. The contention of the respondents is that they require more than 15 days time to pass orders on the representation of the petitioner.
8. In view of the above, this Court directs the respondents to place the matter before the syndicate and pass orders on the representation of the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. The respondents are further directed to permit the petitioner in the services temporarily, until orders are passed on the representation of the petitioner.
9. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
02.04.2025 Speaking order : Yes/No 5/6
Index : Yes/No smn V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
smn To
1. The Vice-Chancellor, University of Madras, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
2. The Registrar, University of Madras, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
W.P.No.21660 of 2023 02.04.2025 6/6