Madras High Court
R.Uma vs The Secretary To Government on 19 July, 2021
W.A. No.1255 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.A.No.1255 of 2021
R.Uma ...Appellant
Vs.
1. The Secretary to Government,
Public Works Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Secretary,
Tamilnadu Public Service Commission,
Chennai 600 002.
3. The Engineer-in-Chief,
Water Resources Organization and
Chief Engineer (General),
Public Works Department,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
4. The Chief Engineer,
Public Works Department (WRO),
Madurai Region, Madurai 625 002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No.1 of 8
W.A. No.1255 of 2021
5. The Superintending Engineer,
Public Works Department (WRO),
Thamiraparani Basin Division,
Tirunelveli.
6. The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department (WRO),
Thamiraparani Basin Division,
Tirunelveli ...Respondents
****
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside
the order dated 01.11.2019 passed in W.P.No.25350 of 2009 by allowing
this Writ Appeal.
****
For Appellants : Mr.P.Ganesan
For Respondents : Mr.C.Jayaprakash
Government Counsel
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of Court was delivered by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.)
The Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 01.11.2019
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.25350 of 2009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. No.1255 of 2021
2. Originally, the appellant / Writ petitioner had filed the Writ
Petition, challenging the proceedings of the sixth appellant dated
16.11.2009 and sought for a direction to the appellants 1 and 2 to restore
her seniority, as it was notified in the Tamil Nadu Public Service
Commission Bulletin dated 01.01.2002 (i.e. Seniority No.170 of 1998-99
1st Batch), and restore her appointment as on 10.12.2002 along with her
junior Thiru.K.Subbiah, since the inordinate delay from 13.11.2001 to
01.08.2006 was unreasonable.
3. The above said Writ Petition was taken up along with another
Writ Petition, in which, the petitioner in W.P.No.25923 of 2009, had also
claimed similar relief like that of the appellant herein.
4. The only question that had to be decided in the Writ Petition
was as to whether the appointment should be reckoned from the date of the
allotment letter or from the date of joining service. The learned Single
Judge had recorded the submissions of the learned counsel for the writ
petitioner in paragraph 11 of the said order, which reads as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. No.1255 of 2021
"The learned counsel for the petitioners restricted
the argument only for the purpose of counting the period
from 2002 for pensionary benefits. He states that the
petitioner will not claim any other benefits."
5. Thereafter, after elaborately considering various proceedings
and orders passed by the authorities, the learned Single Judge has held in
paragraph 16 as follows:
" A perusal of these orders show that the
petitioners were selected in the year 2000 itself and they
have been now reallotted to their respective
departments in PWD. They therefore cannot be treated
as freshly recruited. They have been recruited prior to
01.04.2003. Though the letters dated 26.07.2006 and
01.08.2006 state that the petitioners are re-appointed, it
is an obvious mistake. The petitioners were selected in
2002 itself. They only had to submit medical certificates
to justify their appointment under the physically
handicapped quota. There is no question of
re-appointment. G.O.Ms.259, Finance (Pension)
Department, dated 06.08.2003, states that the new
contributory pension scheme would apply only to
employees recruited on or after 01.04.2003. As stated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. No.1255 of 2021
the recruitment in the case of the petitioners had been
completed in 2000 itself and therefore the petitioner can
be granted only under the old scheme. It is made clear
that this order is only for the purpose of grant of
pensionary benefits. The petitioner will not be able to
claim any backwages or for any other purpose
including computation of seniority."
6. The Writ Appeal is now filed by the Writ Petitioner, aggrieved
over the fact that she cannot claim seniority. According to the appellant, the
undertaking recorded by the learned Single Judge was only with respect to
another Writ Petition No.25923 of 2009 and not with respect to the
appellant herein. Therefore, the appellant prays that she ought to have been
given the pensionary benefits counting the service from the year 2002.
7. The learned Single Judge has passed the order specifically
mentioning that the writ petitioner is not entitled to claim any backwages or
for any other purpose including computation of seniority. Having given up
the right, if the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the same, even assuming for
a moment, it is a mistake, she should have filed a Review Petition and got
the same clarified before the learned Single Judge, instead, she has filed the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. No.1255 of 2021
above Writ Appeal. We may not know as to what actually transpired in the
Writ Court, unless otherwise the writ petitioner files a petition for a review
or clarification or modification of the impugned order of the learned Single
Judge. It appears that the learned counsel, who is before us for the
appellant, had appeared before the Writ Court for both the Writ Petitioners.
Therefore, we are unable to accept the contention of the appellant that the
said undertaking was not intended for her and it was only for the other writ
petitioner in W.P.No.25923 of 2009. Hence, we find no merits to interfere
with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
[P.S.N., J.] [K.R., J.]
19.07.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
srn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. No.1255 of 2021
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Public Works Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Secretary,
Tamilnadu Public Service Commission,
Chennai 600 002.
3. The Engineer-in-Chief,
Water Resources Organization and
Chief Engineer (General),
Public Works Department,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
4. The Chief Engineer,
Public Works Department (WRO),
Madurai Region, Madurai 625 002.
5. The Superintending Engineer,
Public Works Department (WRO),
Thamiraparani Basin Division,
Tirunelveli.
6. The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department (WRO),
Thamiraparani Basin Division,
Tirunelveli
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. No.1255 of 2021
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
and
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
srn
W.A. No.1255 of 2021
19.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
