G.Mariappan, S/O.Ganapathi, v. The State Of Tamil Nadu,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.08.2016

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL W.P.(MD) No.15544 of 2016 G.Mariappan .. Petitioner vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Department of Animal Husbandry Dairying & Fisheries Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.

2.The Director of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services, Thenampet, Chennai - 6.

3.The Regional Joint Director, Department of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

4.The Deputy Director, Department of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

.. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner in service taking into account of the acquittal of the Petitioner in Criminal Case in C.C.No.110/2009 dated 07.04.2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.5 Tirunelveli and in the light of order passed by the 1st Respondent in his proceedings in G.O.Ms.No.39 Animal Husbandry Dairying and Fisheries Department dated 02.03.2016 and in the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent in Na.Ka.No.86567/No.2/2008, dated 04.03.2016 to similarly placed persons and by considering the Petitioner's representation, dated 17.06.2016 within a stipulated time.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar For Respondents : Mr.G.Muthukannan Government Advocate *****

O R D E R

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Government Advocate for the Respondents.

2.By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 3.No Counter affidavit is filed.

4.The Petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the First Respondent/State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Department of Animal Husbandry Dairying & Fisheries Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9, to reinstate the Petitioner in service taking into account of his acquittal in criminal case in C.C.No.110 of 2009, dated 07.04.2011, on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Tirunelveli and in the light of the order passed by the First Respondent in G.O.Ms.No.39, Animal Husbandry, dated 02.03.2016 and in the proceedings of the Second Respondent in Na.Ka.No.86567/No.2/2008, dated 04.03.2016 to similarly placed persons by considering his representation dated 17.06.2016.

5.The main grievance of the Petitioner is that while he was serving in the District Veterinary Farm, Tirunelveli, a case was registered against him and 10 others on 06.10.2007 by Pettai Police in Crime No.577 of 2007 under Sections 457 and 380 IPC alleging that they were involved in the theft of Government property. Ultimately, the said criminal case ended in acquittal on 07.04.2011 in C.C.No.110 of 2009 on the file of the trial Court. 6.The stand of the Petitioner is that in view of the pendency of the criminal case, his service was not reqularised. Hence, he filed W.P.(MD)No.13524 of 2009, before this Court and the same was disposed of, on 18.12.2009, to consider and pass orders on his representation, dated 09.12.2009, within a period of six weeks.

Having received the said copy of the order, the Third Respondent/ Regional Joint Director, Department of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District, rejected his request by means of proceedings, dated 20.01.2010, stating that he has no power to reinstate him, unless the Government passed an order. In the meanwhile, he was acquitted in the criminal case, on 07.04.2011 and the said criminal case was attained finality, because of the fact that no appeal was preferred on the side of the prosecution.

7.It comes to be known that soon after the acquittal of the Petitioner, in the criminal case, as stated supra, he preferred a representation, dated 24.12.2011 to the Respondents seeking to reinstate him in service and consequently requested him to regularise his service with effect from 01.01.2006 in the light of the proceedings of the First Respondent, dated 11.11.2006 and the same was duly acknowledged. However, no steps have been taken to reinstate him in service.

8.At this stage, the Learned counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that similarly placed persons like the Petitioner projected W.P.(MD)Nos.5698 and 7780 of 2012 before this Court seeking similar relief and the same were disposed of by orders, dated 24.04.2012 and 30.06.2014 respectively. 9.In fact, the First Respondent, pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, had implemented the order of this Court in G.O.Ms.No.39, dated 02.03.2016 by reinstating the concerned persons in service as Veterinary Assistance and their services were also regularised with pay band of Rs.4800-10000-1400 by means of proceedings of the Second Respondent, dated 04.03.2016. 10.

The prima facie plea taken on behalf of the Petitioner is that he is a similarly placed person like that of others, who approached this Court and also obtained an order by way of issuance of Government Order in their favour and they were reinstated in service. To put it precisely, subsequently, they were regularised in their service. Therefore, he had sent a representation to the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 on 17.06.2016 requesting them to reinstate him in service and to regularise him with pay protection like similarly placed persons. Since his representation is pending, he has filed the present writ petition. 11.

It is to be borne in mind that once a Court of Law passes an order in favour of group of persons, or category of persons, then, it is not essential for each and every person to approach a Court of Law and to obtain order in his favour. 12.At this stage, the Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents emphatically submits that the Petitioner in his representation, dated 17.06.2016, had categorically averred that on an earlier occasion, he had filed W.P.(MD)No.13524 of 2009 and obtained necessary orders and inspite of the same, no action has been taken till date etc.

13.Considering the fact that the Petitioner's earlier W.P.(MD) No.13524 of 2009 filed before this Court was disposed of, on 18.12.2009, whereby and where under, this Court had passed an order to consider his representation, dated 09.12.2009, within a

period of six weeks thereafter and even after receipt of the same, the Petitioner has not obtained any favourable orders in his favour from the side of the Respondents.

14.Inasmuch as the Petitioner is similarly placed like that of other persons, in whose favour the Government had passed G.O.Ms.No.39, dated 02.03.2016, by implementing the orders passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)Nos.5698 and 7780 of 2012, dated 24.04.2012 and 30.06.2014 respectively, at this stage, this Court, to prevent an aberration of Justice and to secure the ends of Justice, simpliciter, directs the First Respondent to look into the representation of the Petitioner with a free, open, unbiased and objective mind and to dispose of the same in a dispassionate manner by passing a reasoned, speaking order (Ofcourse, after providing necessary opportunity to the Petitioner and others, if any, by adhering to the principles of Natural Justice), within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

15.With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar rj2 To:

Secretary to Government, Department of Animal Husbandry Dairying & Fisheries Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9. 2.The Director of Animal Husbandry &Veterinary Services, Thenampet, Chennai - 6.

3.The Regional Joint Director, Department of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District. 4.The Deputy Director, Department of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

+1CC to Mr.Ajmal Associates SR.No.46442 GJM/CK/1.9.16-4p-6c W.P.(MD) No.15544 of 2016 22.08.2016