Madras High Court
A.Mohamed Abu Bucker vs The Secretary To Government on 7 December, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.12.2021
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
W.A.No.2745 of 2021
A.Mohamed Abu Bucker ..Appellant
Vs
1.The Secretary to Government,
Department of Highways,
Secretariat, Chennai- 600 009.
2.The Chief Engineer,
Highways (General),
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
3.The Accountant General (A & E),
Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 018.
4.The Superintending Engineer,
Highways Circle Office,
Reserve Line Road,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli – 627 002.
5.The Divisional Engineer,
Highways Division Office,
Nagercoil – 629 001. ..Respondents
Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the
order dated 31.10.2019 made in W.P.No.3417 of 2005.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
For Appellant .. Mr.S.M.Hameed Mohideen
For Respondents .. Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik,
Additional Government Pleader,
for R1,R2, R4 and R5
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)
Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated 31 October
2019 recorded on W.P.No.3417 of 2005. This appeal is by the original
writ petitioner.
2. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the
benefits claimed in the writ petition ought to have been granted by
learned single Judge, since the rejection of the request of the writ
petitioner by the employer was inconsistent with the terms of his
appointment, to which both the parties had agreed in the year 1974. It
is further submitted that the appellant had made representations in the
years 1989 and 2001 and since there was no response, therefore he
had approached this Court in the year 2004. It is submitted that this
appeal be entertained.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. Learned Additional Government Pleader has supported the
order of learned single Judge.
4. Having heard learned advocate for the appellant and having
considered the material on record, this Court finds as under :-
4.1 The prayer of the appellant was as follows:
“To issue a Writ of certiorarified mandamus calling
for and examining the entire records relating to
and connected with the proceedings of the 4th
respondent herein in No.10855/2004-7/B1
resulting in his order dated 27.12.2004 and
quashing the same and directing him consequently
fix the scale of pay of the petitioner treating the
date of his appointment as Road Inspector namely
22.05.1972 as the date of initial appointment
considering his representations dated 13.11.1989
and 01.02.2003 and to send his pensionary
proposals to the 3rd respondent herein
preparatory to his retirement shortly.”
4.2 The appellant was to retire in the year 2005.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.3 The substance of his grievance was that, in the year 2004-
2005, he had some grievance with regard to his date of officiating in a
particular cadre, which dates back to some 30 years. The writ petition
could not have been entertained for such a stale claim. The argument
of learned advocate for the appellant that the representations were
made in the years 1989 and 2001, would not take the case of the
appellant any further, since in substance the grievance was even firstly
before this Court after almost 30 years. Though the law of limitation
may not be strictly applicable in writ jurisdiction, the grievance which
could hardly be examined on merits even in civil suit, could not have
been examined belatedly that too after about 30 years, in exercise of
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejection of the
writ petition by learned single Judge therefore may not call for any
interference.
5. We further find that even on merits, learned single Judge
examined the issue and according to him no relief could have been
granted. According to the learned advocate for the appellant, there are
some factual discrepancies which led to some error. We find that, as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the writ jurisdiction could not have been exercised for the grievance of
the year 1974, that aspect need not be examined further.
6. For the above reasons, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(P.U.J.,) (S.S.K.J.,)
07.12.2021
Index:Yes/No
mmi/26
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Department of Highways,
Secretariat, Chennai- 600 009.
2.The Chief Engineer,
Highways (General),
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
3.The Accountant General (A & E),
Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 018.
4.The Superintending Engineer,
Highways Circle Office,
Reserve Line Road,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli – 627 002.
5.The Divisional Engineer,
Highways Division Office,
Nagercoil – 629 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
mmi
W.A.No.2745 of 2021
07.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
