Madras High Court
The Director Of Public Libraries vs M.Suganandhan on 21 April, 2021
WA.No.641/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 21.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM
WA.No.641/2021
& CMP.No.2856/2021
1.The Director of Public Libraries
O/o.The Director of Public Libraries
737, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.
2.The District Library Officer
Office of the Local Library Authority
737, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002. .. Appellants
Versus
M.Suganandhan ..Respondent/Writ
Petitioner
Prayer:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order passed in WP.No.12891/2020 dated 11.12.2020.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.No.641/2021
For Appellants : Mr.C.Munusamy
Special Government Pleader
[Education]
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.,
through Video Conferencing]
1. The official respondents in WP.No.12891/2020 are the appellants
herein.
2. The respondent/writ petitioner filed the said writ petition, praying for
issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the official
respondents/appellants herein to sanction the backwages due to the
respondent/writ petitioner from 19.08.1998 to 31.10.2006 and pay the
same with interest @ 24% per annum and within the time frame as
may be fixed by this Court.
3. The said writ petition, after contest, came to be allowed with a
direction, directing the official respondents/appellants herein to pay
the arrears of salary and allowances to the respondent/writ petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.No.641/2021
for the period from 19.08.1998 to 31.10.2006 within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order and the
Court has also rejected the request for payment of interest for the
belated payment @ 24% per annum.
4. Mr.C.Munusamy, learned Special Government Pleader [Edn]
appearing for the appellants / official respondent would submit that
though the respondent/writ petitioner was removed from service on
19.08.1998 and he made a challenge to the said order by filing
OA.No.8880/2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal,
the matter could not be disposed of and on abolition of the Tribunal,
it was transferred to the file of this court and renumbered as
WP.No.47275/2006 [T] and came to be disposed of only on
08.02.2011 and in the interregnum, the respondent/writ petitioner had
attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.2006.
5. It is brought to the knowledge of this Court by the learned Special
Government Pleader that neither the respondent/writ petitioner nor
the official respondents have brought to the knowledge of the Court
as to the respondent/writ petitioner attaining the age of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.No.641/2021
superannuation on 31.10.2006 and in the interregnum, he attained the
age of superannuation and vide proceedings dated 09.04.2013, the 2nd
appellant/2nd respondent having felt that there is no provision to
initiate disciplinary proceedings against the person who was no
longer in service, chose to drop the further proceedings and pension
was also sanctioned during the year 2016 and gratuity was also settled
in the year 2017.
6. The primordial submission made by the learned Special Government
Pleader [Edn] is that admittedly, from the date of removal from
service on 19.08.1998, till the date of superannuation on 31.10.2006,
the respondent/writ petitioner did not work and therefore, the
question of paying the arrears of salary and allowances do not arise at
all and the said material fact has been overlooked while allowing the
writ petition and hence, prays for interference.
7. This Court has carefully considered the arguments advanced by the
learned Special Government Pleader [Edn] appearing for the
appellants/official respondents and also perused the materials placed
before it.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.No.641/2021
8. A perusal of the order dated 08.02.2011 made in WP.No.47275/2006
[T] filed by the respondent/writ petitioner against the appellants
herein would disclose among other things that while the
respondent/writ petitioner was working as Grade-III Librarian in the
services of the 2nd appellant/2nd respondent, he was removed from
service on 19.08.1998 without holding any enquiry at all and
challenging the legality of the procedure and order, he filed
OA.No.8880/2000 and it was entertained and on abolition of the
Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the case was transferred to the
file of this Court and renumbered as WP.No.47275/2006 [T].
9. The learned Single Judge, having noted that a total go-by had been
give to Rule 17[b] of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Rules
[Classification, Regulation, Appeals], now re-named as Tamil Nadu
Civil Services [Discipline and Appeal] Rules, had interfered with the
said order and by setting aside the same, granted liberty to the official
respondents to initiate proceedings against the respondent/writ
petitioner in accordance with the relevant statutory rules before
inflicting any penalty and also directed to follow the said rules
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.No.641/2021
scrupulously. The fact remains that pending the said writ petition, the
respondent/writ petitioner had attained the age of superannuation on
31.10.2006. The official respondents/appellants have felt that in the
light of the said fact, there are no provisions in the Rule available for
initiating disciplinary proceedings/action, chose to drop the further
proceedings vide order dated 09.04.2013 and in the year 2016,
sanctioned pension and in the year 2017, gratuity was also settled.
10. It is pertinent to point out at this juncture that a basic tenement of the
rule, viz., Rule 17[b] of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services [Discipline
and Appeal] Rules, have not been followed and though the writ
petitioner was a permanent employee in the services of the 2nd
appellant/2nd respondent as Grade III Librarian, but for the fact of his
removal of the writ petitioner, would have definitely continued in
service and subject to initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, if any
in respect of other delinquencies, he would have attained the age of
superannuation on 31.10.2006. Therefore, in the light of the said fact,
the respondent/writ petitioner cannot be put to blame.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.No.641/2021
11. It is also to be noted at this juncture that in WP.No.47275/2006 [T],
the order came to be passed only on 08.02.2011 and in the
interregnum, the respondent/writ petitioner had attained the age of
superannuation on 31.10.2006 and the order dated 09.04.2013
dropping the further proceedings came to be passed nearly two years
thereafter. The official respondents took their own time to sanction
pension after three years from the date of proceedings on 09.04.2013
and settled the gratuity in the year 2017. There is absolutely no
tenable and acceptable reasons adduced on behalf of the official
respondents as to the said delay.
12. This Court also note with anguish that it has become regular feature
on the part of the officials not to take serious note of the orders
passed by this Court and they are repeatedly indulging in compliance
of the orders of this Court, only after initiation of the contempt
proceedings. It is high time that the concerned Administrative
Department shall take note of this repeated kind of infractions and if
necessary, shall issue administrative instructions or initiate
appropriate departmental and other action for the belated compliance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.No.641/2021
of the orders passed by this Court without any reasons/reasonable or
acceptable explanation.
13. In the light of the above reasons, the respondent/writ petitioner
cannot be put to blame and the learned Single Judge, have taken note
of the overall facts and circumstances and has rightly granted the
relief of payment of arrears of salary and allowances to the writ
petitioner for the period from 19.08.1998 to 31.10.2006 and expressly
declined to grant interest as requested by the writ petitioner @ 24%
per annum.
14. This Court, on an independent application of mind to the entire
materials, is of the considered view that there is no error apparent or
infirmity in the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge in
allowing the writ petition and finds no merits in this writ appeal.
15. In the result, the writ appeal stands dismissed at the admission stage
itself, confirming the order dated 11.02.2020 made in
WP.No.12891/2020. The appellants/official respondents are directed
to comply with the said order dated 11.02.2020 made in
WP.No.12891/2020, as confirmed in this writ appeal, within a period
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.No.641/2021
of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order /
uploading of the order in the website and communicate the decision
taken, to the respondent/writ petitioner. No costs. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[MSNJ] [PRMJ]
21.04.2021
AP
Internet: Yes
To
1.The Director of Public Libraries
O/o.The Director of Public Libraries
737, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.
2.The District Library Officer
Office of the Local Library Authority
737, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
Copy to:-
Mr.M.Suganandhan
Sakthi Illam, No.11,
Shri Ram Nagar, Kosakulam
Madurai 625 017.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.No.641/2021
M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.,
AND
P.RAJAMANICKAM, J.,
AP
WA.No.641/2021
21.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
