E.Venugopal v. Government Of Tamil Nadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.11.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE E.Venugopal ... Petitioner Vs
1. Government of Tamil Nadu Rep by Principal Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Chennai-600 015.
3. The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District.
Thiruvannamalai.
4. The Block Development Officer, Cheyyar Block, Cheyyar-604 407.
Thiruvannamalai District.
.. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to place him on regular time scale of pay with effect from 16.06.1993 the initial date of his appointment on compassionate grounds and to grant all consequential 1/6
benefits, service and monetary benefits by considering the petitioner representation dated 30.05.2022 and in the light of G.O.Ms.No.73 dated 26.10.1983 and the orders passed by the third respondent in Pr.Na.Ka.No.8204/2007/Pa.E1 dated 20.07.2011. For petitioner ...
Mr.P.Murali For Respondents ...
Mr.P.Balathandayutham Spl.Government Pleader R.1 to R.3 Mr.P.Sathish AGP For R.4
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus seeking for a direction to the respondents to place him on regular time scale of pay with effect from 16.06.1993 and to grant all consequential benefits, service and monetary benefits based on the petitioner's representation dated 30.05.2022.
2. Heard Mr.P.Murali, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Balathandayutham, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.P.Sathish, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the fourth respondent. By 2/6
consent of the parties, the writ petition has been taken up for final disposal.
3. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that even though a similarly placed person was regularised in service pursuant to the order of the third respondent dated 20.07.2011, the petitioner has not been granted regularisation.
4.The petitioner was earlier appointed as an Office Assistant in the year 1993, but within a period of few months, he has been de-promoted as a contingent staff with effect from 16.06.1993. The petitioner has given a representation seeking for his regularisation as was done to a similarly placed person with effect from 16.06.1993. Since the representation has not been considered till date by the respondents, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
5. Since there is no acknowledgement produced by the petitioner for having sent the earlier representation, the petitioner will have to submit a fresh representation.
3/6
6. No prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the petitioner is allowed to give a representation and a direction is issued to the respondents to consider the same and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
7. For the foregoing reasons this Court directs the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the third respondent seeking for regularisation of his service with effect from 16.06.1993 within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the said representation, the third respondent shall consider the same and pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks thereafter. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
11.11.2022 Index: Yes/ No Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order sr 4/6
To
1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Chennai-600 015.
3. The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District.
Thiruvannamalai.
4. The Block Development Officer, Cheyyar Block, Cheyyar-604 407.
Thiruvannamalai District.
5/6
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
sr 11.11.2022 6/6