Madras High Court
K.Kandasamy vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 March, 2014
Author: K.B.K.Vasuki
Bench: K.B.K.Vasuki
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 17.03.2014 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI W.P.No.12838 of 2007 (OA.No.4326 of 2002) K.Kandasamy .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep by its Secretary Environment of Forest Dept, Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 2.The Principal Chief Conservation of Forests, Panagal Buildings, Saidapet, Chennai-15. .. Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the first respondent's letter No.16554/Va.2/04-12 dated 03.01.2007 and to quash the same and direct the respondents to treat the period between 11.06.1997 and 08.03.1999 as compulsory wait (duty for all purposes) and consequently revise and refix the pay, retiral and pensionary benefits arising thereto forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.L.Chandrakumar For Respondents : M/s.Inbarajan, Spl.G.P.(Forest). O R D E R
The relief sought for herein is for quashing the order passed by the first respondent and for directing the respondents to treat the period between 11.06.1997 and 08.03.1999 as compulsory wait (duty for all purposes) and consequently refix and pay all retiral and pensionary benefits.
2.The few facts which are relevant for consideration herein are as follows : The petitioner was directly recruited as Forestor during March 1975. Thereafter, he was promoted as Ranger. While he was working as Forestor he was by order dated 29.05.1997 transferred to hill station and the same was challenged by way of OA.No.3941 of 1997 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal was pleased to stay the operation of the transfer order. Inspite of the same, the petitioner was not issued with any joining order and not allowed to join duty. On the other hand, the petitioner was issued with another transfer order on 10.09.1997. The same was again challenged by way of OA.No.8805 of 1998 which was allowed on 05.11.1998 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. In pursuance of such order, posting order was issued by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings dated 22.01.1999 and the petitioner on due receipt of the same, joined duty on 19.03.1999.
3.However, the facts made available herein would reveal that the petitioner was not allowed to join duty by reason of consecutive transfer orders during the period between 11.06.1997 to 08.03.1999. While the petitioner sought for the above mentioned period to be treated as compulsory wait and to be on duty for all other purposes, the respondent has by the impugned order rejected his request on the ground that the transfer orders passed are administrative in nature and the petitioner did not comply with the same but approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with delay, as such, the same cannot be treated as period of compulsory wait and duty period. Hence, this writ petition by the petitioner.
4.Heard the rival submissions made on both sides.
5.The contention so raised on the side of the petitioner to treat the period of his absence as compulsory wait and on duty, deserves merits and acceptance for the following reasons. The absence of the petitioner for the period above mentioned is on account of transfer orders and the challenge of the same before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and non issuance of posting orders inspite of stay order granted by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The operation of the first transfer order dated 29.05.1997 is stayed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and inspite of the same, the petitioner was not given any posting order in compliance with the stay order and the second transfer order was also duly challenged before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and was set aside and during the period between the two transfer orders the petitioner was unable to join duty for want of any posting orders from the authority concerned. As such, the said period cannot be treated as period of absence, but it shall be treated as period of compulsory waiting for want of orders of posting, which shall be treated only as duty and not otherwise. The contention as if the petitioner absented himself from duty is no longer available to the first respondent by reason of stay of the operation of the first transfer order and by reason of second order being set aside by the Tamil K.B.K.VASUKI, J tsh Nadu Administrative Tribunal. Inspite of the same, the first respondent has passed the impugned order which is not only arbitrary, but also contrary to law and the same cannot be allowed to stand and is hence liable to be set aside.
6.In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order stands set aside and the period between 11.06.1997 and 08.03.1999 during which the petitioner shall be treated as compulsory waiting and duty period for all practical purposes with consequential monetary benefits. The respondents are directed to refix and pay the retirement and pensionary benefits to the petitioner, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.
17.03.2014 Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/No tsh To
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep by its Secretary Environment of Forest Dept, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2.The Principal Chief Conservation of Forests, Panagal Buildings, Saidapet, Chennai-15.
WP.No.12838 of 2007