P. Kanagarajan v. The Govt. Of Tamilnadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.02.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH P.Kanagarajan ... Petitioner /vs./ 1.The Government of Tamilnadu, represented by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, St.George Fort, Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The Government of Tamilnadu, represented by its Principal Secretary, Printing and Stationary Department, Secretariat, St.George Fort, Chennai.
3.The Director, Printing and Stationary Department, 110, Anna Salai, Chennai.
4.The Branch Manager, Government Branch Press, Public Office Compound, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.
5.The Principal Accountant General, O/o. The Accountant General, Tamilnadu, 361, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018.
... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 2 to 4 to issue revised Scale ie., Rs.9,300/- + 34,800/- + 4,200/- to the post of Special Grade Compositor as per Government LR.No.63305/Pay Cell/2010-1 dated 08.11.2010 from the 1/3
period of 01.01.2006 to 11.06.2014 to the petitioner based on the petitioner's representation dated 16.11.2019, within a time frame fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.V.Rajasekaran For R1 to R4 : Mr.M.Jeyakumar Additional Government Pleader For R5 : Mr.P.Gunasekaran Standing Counsel
ORDER
By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 2.Though the petitioner has sought for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to the respondents 2 to 4 to issue revised Scale of pay to the post of Special Grade Compositor as per Government Letter No.63305/Pay Cell/2010-1 dated 08.11.2010 from the period of 01.01.2006 to 11.06.2014 to the petitioner, in my view, such a decision is to be taken by the respondents and in case, the petitioner is aggrieved against such any decision, it would be appropriate to approach this Court.
3.The petitioner would submit that he has already submitted a representation on 16.11.2019 in this regard, which is said to be pending. If the said representation is directed to be disposed of within stipulated time, the ends of justice could be secured. 4.Whenever a representation is made to a statutory authority to redress the claim of the employee, there is a duty cast upon the respondents to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. Such an inaction would amount to dereliction of duties and thereby this Court would be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India and thereby direct such authority to consider the representation within the stipulated time. 5.
In view of the above observations, there shall be a direction to the third respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 16.11.2019, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any of its view with regard to the claim made by the petitioner in his representation and it is for the third respondent to consider it in accordance with law.
6.With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) mm To 1.The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, St.George Fort, Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The Principal Secretary, Printing and Stationary Department, Secretariat, St.George Fort, Chennai.
3.The Director, Printing and Stationary Department, 110, Anna Salai, Chennai.
4.The Branch Manager, Government Branch Press, Public Office Compound, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.
+1 CC to SPL.GP ( SR-6337,6601[F] dated 14/02/2020 ) +1 CC to MR.A.V.RAJASEKARAN, Advocate ( SR-6296[F] dated 14/02/2020 ) 13.02.2020 KM/(20.02.2020) 3P 7C 3/3