Madras High Court
The Director Of Rural Development vs A.Murugaiah on 8 February, 2021
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
W.A(MD)NO.175 OF 2014
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014
1.The Director of Rural Development,
Panagal Building,
Saidapet,
Chennai.
2.The District Collector,
Thoothukudi District,
Thoothukudi. :Appellants/Respondents
.vs.
1.A.Murugaiah,
Extension Officer,
Srivaikundasm Panchayat Union,
(Now BDO, Pudur Panchayat Union),
Thoothukudi District. :Ist Respondent/Petitioner
2.S.Alangaram,
Block Development Officer,
Kayathar Panchayat Union,
(now retired),
Thoothukudi District. : 2nd Respondent/Third
Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
praying this Court to set aside the order passed by this Court in
W.P(MD)No.2814 of 2006, dated 27.07.2009.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
For Appellant :Mr.P.Mahendran
Addl.Govt.Pleader
For Respondent-1 :Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu
For Respondent-2 :No appearance
JUDGMENT
*************
[Judgment of the Court was made by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.]
The Writ Appeal is preferred by the Department challenging
the order passed on 27.7.2009, allowing the Writ Petition filed by
the first respondent.
2.The Writ Petitioner was appointed on 20.09.1989 as Junior
Assistant in the Collectorate of Pudukkottai District. He had
applied for mutual transfer to Thoothukudi District. As his request
was acceded to and he was transferred to Thoothukudi District on
12.7.1980 in the place of one A.Malalingam, who had also
submitted an application for mutual transfer. Therefore the said
transfer was treated to be a mutual transfer.
3.In the transfer order, it was communicated that so far as
the senoiry is concerned, it should be fixed based on Rule 20(b) of
the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules. Therefore, according to
the Petitioner, he should have been fixed in the position of one
A.Mahalingam, who was mutually transferred in his place.
http://www.judis.nic.in
However, the department had fixed the Petitioner only below the
second respondent.
4.Rule 20(b) of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules
states that the senior among the Assistants/Junior Assistants
mutually transferred be given the same rank in the departmental
unit to which he is transferred, which was held by the person in
whose place he comes to that departmental unit and the junior of
them takes his rank in the administrative unit of the department to
which he is transferred with reference to the date of his first
appointment in the service.
5.Considering the fact that the transfer of the Writ Petitioner
as well as one A.Mahalingam was mutual, the Writ Petitioner's
seniority should have been fixed in the place of the said
A.Mahalingam, who had the senioirty S.No.263 as per the
proceedings, dated 17.3.1992 issued by the second appellant. The
said proceedings, dated 17.3.1992 was not considered by the
authorities and the Writ Petitioner was placed below the second
respondent/Alangaram. Hence the learned Single Judge had
allowed the Writ Petition quashing the order, dated 24.10.2005
based on Rule 20(b) of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules.
Though the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for
http://www.judis.nic.in
the appellants argued that the second respondent Alangaram
joined the service on 26.10.1987, admittedly, his transfer was a
regular one and not a mutual transfer. When it is a mutual transfer,
Rule 20-(b) will come into effect. The learned Additional
Government Pleader also submitted that the transfer of the Writ
Petitioner as well as A.Mahalingam was mutual. Hence the Writ
Petitioner can be placed in the position of the mutual transferee
A.Mahalingam.
6.It is now stated that both the respondents 1 and 2 got
retired from service. However, for the purpose of their terminal
benefits, the seniority has to be fixed as per the proceedings of the
first respondent in No.V12/93068/91-2, dated 17.3.1992 and re-fix
the seniority of the Writ Petitioner for the purpose of terminal
benefits.
7.With the above directions, the Writ Appeal stands
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petition is dismissed.
[P.S.N.,J.] & [S.K.,J.]
08.02.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
vsn
http://www.judis.nic.in
Note :
In view of the present lock
down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of
the order may be utilized
for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented
is the correct copy, shall be
the responsibility of the
advocate / litigant
concerned.
http://www.judis.nic.in
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA J.
AND
S.KANNAMMAL, J.
vsn
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A(MD)NO.175 OF 2014
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014
08.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
