Madras High Court
S.Subramanian vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 15 December, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARI PARANTHAMAN W.P.No.4468 of 2007 (T) O.A.No.6035 of 2001 S.Subramanian ... Petitioner Vs. 1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner for Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai 5. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition came to be numbered by transfer of O.A.No.6035 of 2001 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying to call for the records of the first respondent in G.O.(Rt) No.248, Revenue (Ser-I) Department, dated 04.07.2001, and to quash the same as illegal and to treat the period between 12.04.2000 and 06.07.2000 as compulsory wait and 07.07.2000 to 09.07.2000 as joining time, and consequently direct the respondents to disburse the pecuniary benefits along with interest @24% p.a. and to award costs. For Petitioner :Mr.M.Govindarajan For Respondents :Mr.V.Subbiah, Spl.GP ORDER
The petitioner was a Revenue Divisional Officer. He was deputed to Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Limited, Chennai, on 22.10.1999, and he was posted therein as Administrative Officer. He was in foreign service.
2. Whileso, he applied for casual leave for two days viz. 10.04.2000 and 11.04.2000, and he sent a telegram to the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Limited, Chennai, seeking casual leave, as he wants to go to his residence at Cuddalore, due to some urgency. But, the Managing Director refused to grant leave and in turn, sent a Deltagram informing that the leave was refused and directed him to join duty immediately. In obedience of the same, the petitioner joined duty immediately on 11.04.2000 at 10 a.m. Whileso, the Managing Director directed him to hand over the charge to one Thiruthuvaraj, Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) and to go on medical leave. The petitioner, left with no other option, handed over the charge on 12.04.2000, and got relieved.
3. The petitioner reported the matter to the second respondent, in his letter dated 13.04.2000, and thereby, he sought posting orders in view of the said circumstances. He enclosed the telegram receipt seeking casual leave and the telegram sent by the Managing Director and a copy of the list of charges handed over to one Thiruthuvaraj. The said letter dated 13.04.2000, was also marked to the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Limited, Chennai.
4. The petitioner also sent another representation dated 26.06.2000, to the second respondent, renewing his request for posting order.
5. Whileso, the first respondent issued G.O.No.(2D) 209, Revenue Department, dated 06.07.2000, posting him as Excise Supervisory Officer at Mohan Brewaries, Valasarawakkam. Accordingly, he joined duty on 10.07.2000.
6. In these circumstances, he made a representation to regularise the period spent on compulsory wait between 12.04.2000 and 09.07.2000. Whileso, the first respondent passed the impugned order in G.O.(Rt) No.248, Revenue (Ser-I) Department, dated 04.07.2001, refusing to regularise the period of compulsory wait. It is stated in the impugned order that he is not eligible for compulsory wait. The period between 12.04.2000 to 09.07.2000, was regularised as eligible leave other than Unearned Leave.
7. The petitioner filed O.A.No.6035 of 2001, before the Tribunal, seeking to quash the impugned order dated 04.07.2001, passed by the first respondent, with a consequential direction to the respondents to regularise the period between 12.04.2000 and 09.07.2000.
8. The respondents filed a reply affidavit refuting the allegations, wherein they have reiterated the same what was stated in the impugned order.
9. Heard both sides.
10. The petitioner was working as a Revenue Divisional Officer. Whileso, during 1999, he was deputed to Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Limited, Chennai. He applied for casual leave for two days i.e., on 10.04.2000 and 11.04.2000. But, the same was rejected by the Managing Director by way of Deltagram and thereby, he was directed to report for duty. Accordingly, he reported for duty on 11.04.2000 itself. The petitioner was directed to hand over the charge to one Thiruthuvaraj on 12.04.2000, by the Managing Director of the said Corporation. Accordingly, he handed over the charge to the said person. The said fact was also intimated to the second respondent by the petitioner, vide his letter dated 13.04.2000. He enclosed a telegram receipt seeking casual leave and the Deltagram sent by the Managing Director and a copy of the list of charges handed over to one Thiruthuvaraj. All these facts are not in dispute.
11. The said letter dated 13.04.2000, sent by the petitioner to the second respondent sought for posting orders. As per the impugned order, the said letter was received by the second respondent on 17.04.2000. Though he sent a letter dated 13.04.2000, seeking posting order, no posting order was issued. Hence, he made another representation dated 26.06.2000, in this regard.
12. Whileso, G.O.(2d) No.209, Revenue Department, dated 06.07.2000, was issued, posting him as Excise Supervisory Officer. In the said GO, it is stated that the petitioner was in compulsory wait.
13. Without taking note of the description made in G.O.(2d)No.209, dated 06.07.2000, that the petitioner was in compulsory wait, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 04.07.2001, stating that the petitioner was not eligible for compulsory wait. The petitioner could not be blamed for asking him to hand over the charge and got relieved on 12.04.2000. He promptly informed the matter by his letter dated 13.04.2000 to the second respondent. Therefore, he cannot be found fault with for the aforesaid events.
14. It is not the case of the respondents that he remained unauthorisedly absent from 12.04.2000. He enclosed the necessary documents in respect of his contentions. In the said circumstances, earlier G.O.(2d)No.209, dated 06.07.2000, has treated him as being kept in compulsory wait, while he was given posting order as Excise Supervisory Officer at Mohan Brewaries, Valasarawakkam. When he was said to be in compulsory wait, vide G.O.(2d) No.209, dated 06.07.2000, the impugned G.O.(Rt.) No.248, dated 04.07.2001, ought not to have passed stating that the the petitioner is not eligible for compulsory wait. When he was relieved all of a sudden by the Corporation on 12.04.2000, the respondents should have issued posting order at the earliest. But, failing to do so, the first respondent issued posting only on 06.07.2000, therefore, the period in between shall be regularised.
15. For the aforesaid reasons, I am inclined to quash the order dated 04.07.2001, passed by the first respondent. Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to regularise the period between 12.04.2000 to 09.07.2000, and also to pay other consequential benefits that arose pursuant to such regularisation. The first respondent is directed to complete the said exercise within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
16. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No Costs.
rkm To
1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner for Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai 5