Madras High Court
The Principal Secretary To ... vs S.Renuka on 8 June, 2021
W.A.(MD).No.200 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.06.2021
CORAM:
The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
The Hon'ble Mrs.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD).No.200 of 2019
C.M.P.(MD).No.1633 of 2019
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Principal Secretary and
Commissioner of Revenue Administration,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk,
Chennai-600 005.
3.The District Collector,
Tiruchirappalli District,
Tiruchirappalli. ...Appellants
Vs.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD).No.200 of 2019
S.Renuka,
Now Special Tahsildar (L.A)
Unit-1, TNPL.,
Manapparai,
Tiruchirappalli District. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set
aside the order passed by the learned Judge, dated 25.04.2018 made in
W.P(MD).No.8115 of 2018.
For Appellants : Mr.A.K.Manickkam
Government Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.S.Visvalingam
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J.]
This appeal has been filed by the Government challenging the
order and direction in W.P(MD).No.8115 of 2018 filed by the
respondent, Tmt.S.Renuka dated 25.04.2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD).No.200 of 2019
2. Heard, Mr.A.K.Manickam, learned Government Counsel
appearing for the appellants and Mr.S.Visvalingam, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent.
3. The said writ petition was filed by the respondent for issuance
of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the proceedings of the
second appellant dated 04.09.2017 and for a consequential direction to
the appellants to include the name of the respondent in the approved list
of the Deputy Tahsildar for the year 2008, according to her seniority in
the feeder category.
4. The only reason assigned in the order impugned in the writ
petition is that the respondent has not completed five years of service
within a crucial date for inclusion in the Panel of Deputy Tahsildar for
the year 2008. The other reason given is that the respondent has not
completed one year and eight months of service in the Collectorate or
any office service before the crucial date (i.e.,) on 15.09.2008. Both the
grounds, on which the respondent was denied the relief, were negatived
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD).No.200 of 2019
and the writ petition was allowed. Sofar as the reason that the respondent
has not completed the requisite period of service in the Collectorate or
any office service, can hardly be a reason to deny inclusion in the Panel,
because posting a person in the Collectorate or any office service is with
the Head of the Department and the employee does not have an option to
choose to do service in a particular establishment.
5. With regard to the second aspect, the respondent was on
maternity leave for a period of three months. The question is whether the
said period can be treated as a service period. This issue is well settled
and there are several decisions which have been passed by this Court,
wherein the periods spent during the maternity leave have been treated as
service period. If that is so, then the case of the respondent would be
squarely covered by the decision taken by the second respondent in the
case of Tmt.N.Praveena Mary. Therefore, the learned Single Bench was
right in allowing the writ petition by referring to the order passed by the
second appellant in the case of Tmt.N.Praveena Mary (supra).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD).No.200 of 2019
6. One observation made by the learned Single Bench in paragraph
No.12 of the impugned order would require certain clarifications. The
learned Single Bench has held that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu
Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 are with
retrospective effect. This observation would be incorrect because the Act
came into force on 15.10.2016. In any event, this will no manner affect
the relief to which the respondent is entitled to. The distinction, which is
sought to be made by the appellants stating that the respondent is a
Direct Recruit Assistant, is also an artificial distinction, because the
period during the maternity leave is treated as service period. The
respondent is entitled to her name being included in the panel of Deputy
Tahsildar for the year 2008. Thus, we find that there is no error in the
order and directions issued by the learned Writ Court.
7. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and stands dismissed. The
order and the directions passed in the writ petition shall be implemented
by the appellants 2 and 3 within a period of three months from the date
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD).No.200 of 2019
on which a copy of this judgment is received. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
(T.S.S.,J.) (S.A.I.,J.)
08.06.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
ssb/tta
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD).No.200 of 2019
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
and
S.ANANTHI, J.
ssb/tta
Order made in
W.A.(MD).No.200 of 2019
Dated:
08.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
