Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Anjalai vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Represented on 16 August, 2019

Author: S.M.Subramaniam

Bench: S.M.Subramaniam

                                                                  W.P.(MD)No.2087 of 2014

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                            DATED: 16.08.2019

                                                  CORAM

                            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                      W.P.(MD)No.2087 of 2014 and
                                          M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014

                      Anjalai                              ... Petitioner

                                                    -Vs-

                      1.The State of Tamil Nadu represented
                        by the Secretary to Government,
                        School Education Department,
                        Secretariat, Chennai.

                      2.The Director of School Education,
                        DPI Campus College Road, Chennai – 6.

                      3.The District Educational Officer,
                        Office of the District Educational Officer,
                        Karur -7.                                   ...Respondents

                      Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
                      Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of
                      Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to
                      G.O.Ms.No.116, dated 05.08.2011 of the 1st respondent and
                      and quash the same in respect of the date of regularisation
                      (Date of joining) and to direct the first respondent to
                      regularise the service of the petitioner's mother from the date
                      of initial appointment, ie., 05.08.1989 and to pay all the
                      monetary and other attendant benefits with arrears within a
                      stipulated time to the petitioner.


                      1/6


http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                                  W.P.(MD)No.2087 of 2014

                                For Petitioner   :Mr.R.Lakshmanan
                                For Respondents :Mrs.S.Srimathy
                                                   ***

                                                    ORDER

The Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.116, School Education Department, dated 05.08.2011, granting the benefit of regularisation to the mother of the writ petitioner with effect from the date of Government Order, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2.The writ petitioner states that the mother of the writ petitioner was appointed as part time employee from 05.10.1989 and she also filed W.P.(MD)No.8847 of 2009, seeking appointment on regular basis. However, the Government passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.116, School Education Department, dated 05.08.2011, granting the benefit of regularisation to the mother of the writ petitioner from the date of the Government Order. Subsequently, the mother of the writ petitioner passed away on 26.11.2013. After the death of mother of the writ petitioner, the present 2/6 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.2087 of 2014 writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner stating that her mother is entitled for retrospective regularisation from the date of which, she was engaged as part time employee.

3.First of all, the writ petitioner, who is the daughter of the deceased employee, cannot seek any such relief for retrospective regularisation of the services during the life time of the employee. The petitioner's mother had served as a part time employee and thereafter, her services were regularised. She died during the year of 2013. This being the factum, the writ petition itself deserves no merit consideration, as the writ petitioner, who is the daughter of the deceased employee, cannot seek the relief for retrospective regularisation of the services.

4.Evan on merits, the mother of the writ petitioner was engaged as part time employee. Thus, granting of regularisation and permanent absorption by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.116, School Education Department, dated 3/6 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.2087 of 2014 05.08.2011, itself was a concession. A part time employee is not entitled for regularisation or permanent absorption, as the legal principles settled by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi. However, the Government relaxed the rules in favour of the part time employees and regularised their services. This being concession already shown to the mother of the writ petitioner, now, after the death of her mother, the writ petitioner cannot claim retrospective regularisation from the date of which, her mother was engaged as part time employee.

5.Thus, the relief sought for in this present writ petition is misconceived and accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

16.08.2019 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No cmr 4/6 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.2087 of 2014 To

1.The Secretary to Government, The State of Tamil Nadu, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai.

2.The Director of School Education, DPI Campus College Road, Chennai – 6.

3.The District Educational Officer, Office of the District Educational Officer, Karur -7.

5/6 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.2087 of 2014 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

cmr W.P.(MD)No.2087 of 2014 16.08.2019 6/6 http://www.judis.nic.in