← Library
Madras High CourtWP(MD)/15919/2016disposed of

K.Murugesan, S/O.Krishnan v. The General Manager

2016-08-26Honourable Mr Justice T.Raja3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 26.08.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.(MD).No.15919 of 2016 K.Murugesan ... Petitioner vs 1.The General Manager Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Limited Ranithottam Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District 2.The Deputy Manager (Salaries) Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Limited Ranithottam Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to include the petitioner's name in the Tentative Seniority List of Special Grade Conductors, who have completed 24 and 21 years of service as on 01.08.2010, which was released by him in his proceedings vide No.7200/A2/TNSTC (T.Veli)/Nagar/2013, dated 16.04.2016, by fixing the petitioner's seniority in appropriate place on the basis of his representation made before him, dated 27.04.2016, within a stipulated time. For petitioner :

Mr.B.Brijesh Kishore For Respondents:

Mr.K.Sathiya Singh Standing Counsel

O R D E R

Mr.K.Sathiya Singh, learned Standing Counsel, takes notice for the respondents. With the consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself.

2. The prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to include the

petitioner's name in the appropriate place of the Tentative Seniority List, dated 16.04.2016, prepared for the Special Grade Conductors, who have completed 24 and 21 years of service as on 01.08.2010, within a stipulated time, based on his representation, dated 27.04.2016.

3. According to the petitioner, on 01.11.1986, he joined as a Conductor in the respondent Transport Corporation on daily wages basis and his service was regularized with effect from 01.02.1989, vide Office Order, dated 27.06.1989. Subsequently, on 11.03.1991, he was placed under suspension, by the first respondent, based on the allegation of misappropriation of funds and he was issued with a show-cause notice, for which he submitted his detailed explanation. However, he was dismissed from service by order, dated 18.09.1991.

4. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal from service, he raised an industrial dispute, in I.D.No.94 of 2000, before the Labour Court, Tirunelveli. The Labour Court, by order dated 26.04.2006, partly allowed the industrial dispute by setting aside the order of dismissal from service and ordering reinstatement with 25% of backwages.

5. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the denial of 75% of backwages and the observation that there is no order with regard to seniority, filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.8064 of 2006 before this Court and the Management also, being aggrieved by the Award of reinstatement of the petitioner, filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.9797 of 2006. This Court heard both the writ petitions together and dismissed the same by a common order, dated 28.08.2007, wherein in Paragraph No.6, this Court has observed that though the Labour Court had observed that there was no necessity to mention about the seniority, it is not clear as to why the Labour Court mentioned about seniority when that was not an issue before the Labour Court.

6. Pursuant to the order, dated 28.08.2007, passed by this Court, on 21.02.2008, the first respondent reinstated the petitioner in service with 25% of backwages and continuity of service, but without extending the benefit of seniority. Challenging the same, the petitioner once again knocked at the doors of this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.13554 of 2009, and this Court, by order, dated 17.04.2013, allowed the writ petition and set aside the order, dated 21.02.2008, passed by the first respondent, holding that the petitioner is entitled to the seniority fixed at the time of suspension.

7. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that even though this Court held that he is entitled to the seniority fixed at the

time of suspension, the respondents have not taken into account the orders of this Court and prepared a Tentative Seniority List of Special Grade Conductors, without including the petitioner's name. Therefore, he sent a representation, dated 27.04.2016, to the respondents. Since the respondents have not taken any effective steps to redress his grievance, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

8. Mr.K.Sathiya Singh, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents, on instructions, submitted that the grievance of the petitioner is under consideration and it would be redressed within a period of four weeks.

9. On perusal, it is seen that though this Court, in the order dated 17.04.2013 in W.P.(MD) No.13554, held that the petitioner is entitled to the seniority fixed at the time of suspension, the respondents have not included his name in the subsequently prepared Tentative Seniority List. It seems to be a total violation of the orders passed by this Court and it is not fair on the part of the respondents. However, taking into account the submission of the learned Standing Counsel, the first respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 27.04.2016, in the light of the order, dated 17.04.2013, passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.13554 of 2009, and pass orders in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

10. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AE) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To:

+1 cc to M/S.B.Brijesh Kishore , Advocate in SR.No. 48091 +1 cc to M/S.K.Sathiya Singh , Advocate in SR.No. 47684 krk CSL/PV/12.09.2016: 3p/3c W.P.(MD).No.15919 of 2016 26.08.2016