Madras High Court
P.Theethapillai vs The Director on 22 February, 2021
W.P.(MD)No.6594 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED:22.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.(MD)No.6594 of 2016
P.Theethapillai ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Director,
Gandhigram Institute of
Rural Health and Family Welfare Trust,
Ambathurai, R.S.(Post),
Dindigul District. ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to pay the
arrears of salary to the petitioner from 01.04.1993 in the scale of pay of
Rs.750/- per month vide his proceedings in PROC.
No.GIRH/Estt/93-94/3069 dated 24.12.1993 with all the service benefits,
increments with interest of 12% till the date of final payment.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.N.Rajamohamed
For Respondent : Mr.V.Karthikeyan
1/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.6594 of 2016
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondent to
pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner from 01.04.1993 in the scale of
pay of Rs.750/- per month vide his proceedings in PROC.No.
GIRH/Estt/93-94/3069 dated 24.12.1993 with all the service benefits,
increments with interest of 12% till the date of final payment.
2. The case of the petitioner is that subsequent to the basic
appointment as temporary Domestic Staff in the year 1971 on
consolidated pay of Rs.395/- per month, the petitioner was appointed
temporarily as peon in the year 1988 and after completion of his
probation, his pay was fixed at Rs.450/- per month in the scale of pay of
Rs.450-10-570-15-720, with all allowances and thereafter, as per
G.O.Ms.No.867 dated 11.08.1989, the scale of pay to the post of Peon
was revised to Rs.750-12-870-15-945 with effect from 01.06.1988.
Subsequently, the petitioner was terminated from the service of Peon and
reverted to the old position of temporary Domestic Staff with effect from
01.04.1993 by stripping of all allowance vide proceedings, dated
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.6594 of 2016
31.03.1993 and thereafter, the petitioner was transferred and appointed
as Peon, temporarily, from the post of Domestic Staff in the scale of pay
of Rs.750-12-870-15-945 vide proceedings, dated 24.12.1993 and his
basic pay was fixed at Rs.810/- per month. Subsequently the petitioner's
service was reverted back to the Domestic Staff with effect from
01.04.1994 on a consolidated pay of Rs.750/- per month, without any
allowances, vide proceedings, dated 19.08.1994. Challenging the said
order dated 19.08.1994, the petitioner filed O.S.No.1371/1994 before the
learned Principal District Judge, Dindigul, seeking the relief of
declaring the above impugned order of the respondent dated 19.08.1994
as null and void and a consequential relief directing the respondent to
pay the salary as per the scale of pay as declared vide proceedings, dated
24.12.1993. The Court below has partly allowed the suit by declaring the
above order dated 19.08.1994 is null and void vide judgment and decree
dated 29.11.1996. Thereafter, the petitioner made representations to
restore his earlier scale of pay of Rs.750-12-870-15-945. But till date,
the respondent has not considered the said representations of the
petitioner. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court with the above
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.6594 of 2016
said prayer.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though
the prayer sought for in this petition is larger in nature, the petitioner
would confine his prayer for a direction to the respondent to consider the
representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a
reasonable time as fixed by this Court.
4. Though no counter is filed till date, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent produced a proceedings of the respondent
dated 25.11.1997 and subsequent proceedings, dated 26.08.2002 through
which the respondent rejected the request of the petitioner to pay the
backwages from 01.05.1994 to 19.06.1997. He further submitted that
without challenging the said orders, filing this writ petition is not
maintainable. Hence, he prays for dismissal of this writ petition.
4. Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.6594 of 2016
5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court
comes to a conclusion that if at all the petitioner aggrieved, the petitioner
has to challenge the said proceedings of the respondent dated 25.11.1997
and 26.08.2002, and without challenging the above said proceedings,
filing this writ petition is not maintainable. Hence, this writ petition
deserves to be dismissed.
6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
However, liberty is given to the petitioner to work out his remedy in the
manner known to law.
22.02.2021
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
PJL
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
W.P.(MD)No.6594 of 2016
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
PJL
W.P.(MD)No.6594 of 2016
22.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
