P.SUBRAMANIAM, v. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU,

Court: Madras High Court

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

Judgment date: 2024-12-18

Case summary

Madras High Court judgment dated 2024-12-18. P.SUBRAMANIAM, v. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU,. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.

Judgment text

WP No. 20556 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE : 18. 12. 2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. ARUL MURUGAN WP No. 20556 of 2012 amd WMP No. 33767 of 2016 and MP No. 2 of 2012 P. Subramaniam ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009 2. The District Collector, Villupuram District, Villupuram ... Respondents Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of st relating to the order of the 1 respondent dated 09. 04. 2009 in Letter No36372/Pa. A. 4. /2008 and quash the same in so far as it relates to the st petitioner and consequently direct the 1 respondent to pay the retirement 1/15 https://www. mhc. tn. gov. in/judis WP No. 20556 of 2012 benefits to the petitioner as extension officer. For Petitioner : Mr. K. Selvaraj For Respondents : Mrs.

V. Yamuna Devi Special Government Pleader for R1 and R2 ORDER st This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the 1 respondent dated 09. 04. 2009 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to pay the retirement benefits to the petitioner as Extension officer. 2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was working as a Junior Assistant in the Survey Department and was posted to the Rural Development Department as Assistant. The petitioner had to pass the relevant test and also undergo the Bhavani Sagar Training for declaration of probation in the category of Assistant. Since the petitioner and others have not cleared the tests within the stipulated period of three years. Subsequently, he along with others have filed OA No. 1100 of 2003 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking for regularization of 2/15 https://www. mhc. tn. gov. in/judis WP No. 20556 of 2012 service and declaration of probation.

The OA was transferred to the file of this Court on abolition of Tribunal, which was renumbered as WP No. 14355 of 2007. This Court by an order dated 20. 11. 2008, disposed of the Writ petition. 3. Based on the orders passed in the writ petition, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents seeking for the benefits. But however, the claim was rejected through the impugned order. Assailing the same, the petitioner had filed this writ petition. 4. Heard Mr. K. Selvaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. V. Yamuna Devi, learned Special Government Pleader for Respondents 1 and 2. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact even though the petitioner had not passed the test within the stipulated period of three years, the Government had issued GO No. 180 dated 30. 09. 2003 wherein the relaxation has been granted for declaring the 3/15 https://www. mhc. tn. gov. in/judis WP No.

20556 of 2012 probation of the petitioner and when the writ petition was disposed of earlier, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent had wrongly given GO date as 30. 01. 2002 instead of 30. 09. 2003 and only in such circumstances, the impugned order was passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner. It is his further contention that if the respondents noticed the GO No. 180 dated 30. 09. 2003 wherein the relaxation was granted, the benefits would have been extended to the petitioner and it is only an error and if the same is revisited by the respondents, the issues could be sorted out. 6. Mrs. V. Yamuna Devi, learned Special Government Pleader st appearing for the respondents based on instructions from the 1 respondent submitted that infact the relaxation was granted to nearly 29 persons including the petitioner through GO No. 180 dated 13. 08. 2003 and wherein the relaxation was granted from the date mentioned in the annexure contained in the Government Order.

As such as per the Government order, the petitioner had completed the training on 31. 12. 1999 and thereby, his probation is to be declared with effect from that date based on which further 4/15 https://www. mhc. tn. gov. in/judis WP No. 20556 of 2012 benefits would be granted. 7. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and also perused the materials available on record. 8. The facts are not in dispute that the petitioner had originally worked as Junior Assistant in the Survey department and thereafter, posted as Assistant in the Rural Development Department and for declaration of probation, the test that are stipulated under the Rules including the Bhavani Sagar Training had to be completed only pursuant to which the probation will be declared in the category of Assistant. Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioner had not passed the test within the stipulated period of three years and thereby, the probation was not declared. 9.

In this regard, the petitioner along with others had approached the Tribunal praying for a direction to relax the rule and consequently declare the probation. OA was transferred to this Court and disposed of by an order dated 20. 11. 2008 in WP No. 14355 of 2007. The said writ petition 5/15 https://www. mhc. tn. gov. in/judis WP No. 20556 of 2012 was disposed by recording the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate to the effect that the GO 1 (D) Social Welfare Department dated 30. 01. 2002 had been passed relaxing the Rules and granted relief to all the petitioners including the petitioner herein who had already retired from service. Since the petitioner had already retired from service, he could only be entitled for monetary benefits. Paragraph 3 of the order is extracted hereunder :- 3.

Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioners probation could not be completed in view of the fact that they have not passed some tests. Later, the Government had passed an order in G. O 1(D) Social Welfare Department dated 30. 01. 2002 relaxing the rules for the petitioners. In view of the said fact, according to the learned Additional Government Pleader pointed out that the third petition had already retired from service and he could be entitled only for monetary benefits. To this recourse, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners expressed no objection. 6/15 https://www. mhc. tn. gov. in/judis WP No. 20556 of 2012 10. Pursuant to the orders passed in the writ petition, the petitioner had made a claim before the respondent to give effect to the order passed in GO by granting the consequential benefits. However, by an impugned order dated 09. 04.

2009, the respondents rejected the claim made by the petitioner holding that no such relaxation had been given to the petitioner. Paragraph 2 of the impugned order is extracted hereunder :- ,k;nky;KiwaPl;oy; murhiz (1o) rK:f eyk;. Ehs; 30/01/2002y; tpjpj;jsh;t[ bra;J cj;jut[fs; btspaplg;gl;ljd; mog;gilapy; j';fs; bgaiu tpGg;g[uk; khtl;l Ml;rpaupd; 11/12/2000 ehspl;l cjtpahsUf;fhd cj;njr gzp[apUg;g[g; gl;oaypy; jpU gp Rnuc&;Fkhh; vd;gtUf;Fg; gpd;dh; nrh;e;J jdpaUf;F tphpthf;f mYtyuhfg; gjtp cht[ mspj;j ehs; Kjy; j';fSf;Fk; tphpthf;f mYtyuhfg; gjtp cah;t[ mspf;f ntz;Lbkdf; nfhhpa[s;sPh;fs;/ Mdhy; j';fsJ nky;KiwaPl;oy; Fwpg;gpl;lgo murhiz (1o) rK:f eyk;.

Ehs; 30/01/2002 btspapog;gltpy;iy/ khwhf muR foj vz; 16092 rj;Jzt[ jpl;lk; /98=3 ehs; 13/07/1999y; epycilikj; JiwapypUe;J Cuf tsh;rprpj; Jiwf;F gzpaku;j;jg;gl;lth;fs; jFjpfhz; gUt fhyj;jpy; tiuaWf;fg;gl;l Jiwj; njh;t[fis njh;r;rp bgw;wpUf;f ntz;Lbkdf; Fwpg;gpl;ljd; mog;gilapy; jh';fs; Cuf tsh;r;rp Jiwj; njh;it jFjpfhz;gUt fhyj;jpw;Fs; nju;r;rp bgwhjjhy; ghh;it 4y; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s murhidapy; jh';fs;Jiwj; njh;tpy; ,Wjpahf njh;r;rp bgw;w ehs; Kjy; jFjpfhz; gUtj;ij ePl;oj;J epiwt[ bra;J Mizaplg;gl;lJ/ mnjnghd;W j';fsJ gzpia ,sepiy cjtpahsh; epiyapy; gzptud;Kiw bra;ag;gl;l murhiz epiy vz; 12 rK:f eyk; kw;Wk; rj;Jzt[j; jpl;lk;. Ehs; 20/01/1998 y; c';fs; rhh;ghf fy;tp taJ ,lXJf;fPL bjhlu;ghd tpjpfisj; jsh;j;jp jh';fs; Jiwj; njh;tpy; njh;r;rp bgWtjpypUe;J 7/15 https://www. mhc. tn. gov. in/judis WP No. 20556 of 2012 tpyf;fspf;fg;gltpy;iy/nkYk; tpjpj;jsh;t[ bra;J murhiz 1o rK:f eyk; ehs; 30/12/2002 vd;w murhiz VJk; btspaplg;gltpy;iy/ ; 11.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the relaxation had been granted to the petitioner and also to 28 other persons through GO No. 180 dated 30. 09. 2003 and only when the writ petition was disposed of, the date of the Government Order was wrongly mentioned and due to which the claim came to be rejected. This Court had directed the learned Government Advocate to obtain necessary instructions in this regard and report as to whether any such relaxation had been granted based on that Government Order. The learned Government Advocate also by submitting the copy of Government order in 1(D) dated 30. 09. 2003 submitted that already the Government had relaxed the Rule and had declared the probation of the petitioner in the category of Assistant on the date mentioned in the annexure contained along with the Government Order. The relevant Government order is extracted hereunder :- 8/15 https://www. mhc. tn. gov. in/judis WP No. 20556 of 2012 9/15 https://www. mhc. tn. gov.

in/judis WP No. 20556 of 2012 10/15 https://www. mhc. tn. gov. in/judis WP No. 20556 of 2012 11/15 https://www. mhc. tn. gov. in/judis WP No. 20556 of 2012 12/15 https://www. mhc. tn. gov. in/judis WP No. 20556 of 2012 12. The name of the petitioner is also extracted in Sl. No. 26 under the Villupuram District in the Government Order and in the annexure declaring the probation of the petitioner with effect from 31. 12. 1999. 13. Since already the GO 1(D) No. 180 dated 30. 09. 2003 has been passed by relaxing rules and the probation of the petitioner in the category of Assistant has been declared, the impunged order rejecting the claim of the petitioner stating that no such relaxation has been granted by wrongly taking note of the dated as 30. 01. 2002 cannot be sustained and in such circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable and the same is hereby set-aside. 14. Since the impugned order came to be passed without taking note of the GO No. 180 dated 30. 09.

2003, the matter is remanded back to st the file of the 1 respondent for passing fresh orders taking into account the relaxation granted through GO 1 D dated 30. 09. 2003 and consider the claim of the petitioner and grant all consequential benefits pursuant to this 13/15 https://www. mhc. tn. gov. in/judis WP No. 20556 of 2012 relaxation granted and a fresh order shall be passed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if he is otherwise eligible. 15. This Writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 18. 12. 2024 rka Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order To 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009 2. The District Collector, Villupuram District, Villupuram 14/15 https://www. mhc. tn. gov. in/judis WP No. 20556 of 2012 G. ARUL MURUGAN.

,J rka WP No. 20556 of 2012 18. 12. 2024 15/15 https://www. mhc. tn. gov. in/judis

Source: Madras High Court. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.