Madras High Court
Madhuri Patil vs . Additional Commissioner, Tribal ... on 22 July, 2005
Author: T.V.Masilamani
Bench: T.V.Masilamani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22/07/2005 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.BALASUBRAMANIAN and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.MASILAMANI W.A.NO.1645 of 2001 BATCH :O R D E R
The validity of the District Level Committee consisting of two members alone and the orders passed by them cancelling the community certificate issued to various individuals, is the core issue in all these writ appeals. The batch of cases underwent a few hearings before us. During those hearings, we expressed our views in certain areas and requested the learned Additional Advocate General to find the response from the Government. Today, the learned Additional Advocate General produced before us a copy of G.O.Ms.No.111 dated 06.07.2005. Under the said Government Order, a District Level Committee consisting of three members, which would be in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case reported in (1997) 5 SCC Pg.437 ( Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development), is placed before us. The Government Order is recorded. In addition to the Government Order, the learned Additional Advocate General also produced before us a letter in Ref.No.7361/ADW-10/01-55 dated 06.07.2005 stating that the Government, on principle, has agreed to remand all the cases to the committee to be newly appointed in terms of G.O.Ms.No.111 dated 06.07.2005. Both the proceedings are recorded. Post the writ appeals on 26.07.2005.
2. Then a question arose, i.e., if all the orders by which the community certificates have been cancelled are set aside on the sole ground that the said cancellation orders have come to be passed by a Committee not properly constituted, what should follow namely, whether the concerned employee should be reinstated with or without backwages? Learned Additional Advocate General would submit that "status quo" as on date namely, being out of employment, shall be maintained till such time the remanded cases are decided by the Committee to be newly constituted as per the Government Order referred to above. In other words, according to the learned Additional Advocate General, reinstatement in service can await the final orders of the District Level Committee to be newly constituted. On the contra, the respective learned counsel appearing for the various employees would submit that once the dismissal order is based on the cancellation of the community certificate and if such cancellation is set aside by this court, then it is deemed that the dismissed employees continue to be in service from the date of dismissal with all attendant benefits.
3. We applied our mind carefully to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances available in these batch of cases and to meet the ends of justice, we are inclined to hold that the following procedure shall be followed depending upon the order to be passed in each case.
"Once the order cancelling the community certificate is quashed on the ground that the Committee which passed the order had no authority to pass, the dismissal order based on such cancellation of community certificate would automatically go, resulting in reinstatement of the concerned employee. However the concerned employee, on his reinstatement, would not be entitled to claim backwages for the period from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement and the same has to await the orders of the District Level Committee, which would go into the issue afresh. It is made clear that each employee reinstated would be entitled to be paid his salary on the last drawn scale basis from the date of his reinstatement till the District Level Committee decides the validity of the cancellation certificate."
4. It is then submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that the State, on it's own, by a letter, provided an appellate remedy to the State Level Committee and in view of a District Level Committee being constituted strictly in terms of Madhuri Patil's case, there would be no need for an appellate remedy. In our considered opinion, if this suggestion is accepted, then against the District Level Committee's order, there would be writ petitions before this court directly. If the appellate remedy, as is in existence today, is continued in future also, then this court is of the opinion that to a large extent filing of writ petitions before this court may be reduced. Under these circumstances, we recommend to the State Government to provide an appellate remedy, as they have already provided in respect of the orders passed earlier, and to prescribe a procedure for filing an appeal before the appellate authority and indicate as to who is the appellate authority.
vsl Internet: Yes