Madras High Court
D.Ayyappan Raj vs The Union Of India on 21 January, 2021
W.A.No.24 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.01.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.A.No.24 of 2021
D.Ayyappan Raj .. Appellant
Vs
1. The Union of India
rep. by its Secretary to Government
Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.
2. The Director General
Border Security Force
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road
New Delhi.
3. The Director General
Central Industrial Security Force
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road
New Delhi.
4. The Deputy Inspector General
Central Industrial Security Force
South Zone, Besant Nagar
Chennai – 600 090.
__________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.24 of 2021
5. The Commandant
HQ No.133 Battalion
Border Security Force
Dantiwada, Banaskantha District
Gujarat – 385 505.
6. The Commandant
Central Industrial Security Force
Meenambakkam
Chennai – 600 027.
7. The Deputy Commandant
Central Industrial Security Force
Airport Security Guard
Trichy. .. Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 18.8.2020 in W.P.No.25952 of 2013 passed by the learned
Single Judge.
For Appellant : Mrs.AL.Ganthimathi
For Respondents : Mr.D.Simon
for 1st respondent
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
There is no merit in the appeal and it is a complete waste of
time.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.24 of 2021
2. The admitted facts are that the writ petitioner-appellant was
employed with the Border Security Force, upon obtaining the
appointment on or about October 24, 2001. The writ petitioner
thereafter sought to apply to the Central Industrial Security Force for a
position. The writ petitioner claims that due intimation was issued to
the Border Security Force authorities seeking permission for the
petitioner to apply for a job with Central Industrial Security Force.
However, it does not appear that any permission of the kind sought by
the writ petitioner was granted by the Border Security Force.
3. Though the writ petitioner insists that at subsequent stages –
when he was called for an interview and, ultimately, offered the job –
the writ petitioner informed the appropriate authorities in Border
Security Force, it does not appear that the writ petitioner's application
for the relevant post in Central Industrial Security Force was processed
through the official or proper channel. The mere intimation to the
employer in such a case would not pass for permission to be obtained
from the employer to obtain a new employment.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.24 of 2021
4. It appears that the writ petitioner continued in the same habit
when the petitioner was employed with Central Industrial Security
Force and at the time that the writ petitioner switched over from
Central Industrial Security Force to Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited.
5. The grievance in the petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution was that the periods that the writ petitioner spent in
service with Border Security Force and Central Industrial Security
Force were not taken into account to reckon the pensionary dues of
the writ petitioner. While dealing with the matter, the learned Single
Bench has referred to the appropriate Rules and the failure on the part
of the writ petitioner to obtain permission from either erstwhile
employer before joining BHEL. The learned Single Bench reckoned
that in each case the writ petitioner had resigned, though the grounds
for resignation may be completely irrelevant.
6. In the light of the discussion in the impugned judgment and
order dated August 18, 2020 and the appropriate conclusions drawn
from the relevant facts, there is no scope for interference. Since the
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.24 of 2021
writ petitioner's application for appointment was not processed through
the official channel either when he switched over from Border Security
Force to Central Industrial Security Force or when he switched over
from Central Industrial Security Force to Bharat Heavy Electricals
Limited, the periods of service spent with Border Security Force and
with Central Industrial Security Force could not be legitimately taken
into account for the purpose of ascertaining the writ petitioner's
pensionary dues upon the writ petitioner retiring from Bharat Heavy
Electricals Limited upon reaching the age of superannuation.
For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal, W.A.No.24 of 2021, is
dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently,
C.M.P.No.374 of 2021 is closed.
(S.B., CJ.) (S.K.R., J.)
21.01.2021
Index : Yes
sasi
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.24 of 2021
To:
1. The Secretary to Government
Union of India
Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.
2. The Director General
Border Security Force
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road
New Delhi.
3. The Director General
Central Industrial Security Force
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road
New Delhi.
4. The Deputy Inspector General
Central Industrial Security Force
South Zone, Besant Nagar
Chennai – 600 090.
5. The Commandant
HQ No.133 Battalion
Border Security Force
Dantiwada, Banaskantha District
Gujarat – 385 505.
6. The Commandant
Central Industrial Security Force
Meenambakkam
Chennai – 600 027.
7. The Deputy Commandant
Central Industrial Security Force
Airport Security Guard
Trichy.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.24 of 2021
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
(sasi)
W.A.No.24 of 2021
21.01.2021
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
