Madras High Court
V.Barnabas vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 June, 2021
W.P.No.24223 of 2010
1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE D : 25.06.2021
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
Writ Petition No.24223 of 2010
and
M.P.No.1 of 2010
V.Barnabas ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 001.
2.The District Collector,
Vellore District,
Vellore.
3.The Director,
Bethesda Hospital,
Ambur,
Vellore District. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Respondents to pay the
monthly salary to the Petitioner from October 2009 till date.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1 of 7
W.P.No.24223 of 2010
For Petitioner : Ms.K.Abhirame for
Mr.V.Raghavachari
For Respondents : Mr.C.Harsha Raj for R1 and R2
Counsel for State
Mr.M.S.Palanisamy for R3
ORDER
The present writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus in respect
of the alleged non payment of monthly salary to the Petitioner from October
2009.
2. The Petitioner states that he was appointed as a Staff
Supervisor by the third Respondent Hospital on 10.08.1986. Thereafter, he
was promoted from time to time as Medical Records Officer, Assistant
General Superintendent, Deputy General Superintendent and Associate
General Superintendent. According to the Petitioner, he was working as the
acting General Superintendent as on the date of affirmation of the affidavit
in support of the writ petition. The Petitioner further states that O.S.No.80
of 2009 had been filed by him against the third Respondent herein before
the District Munsif Court, Ambur and that the said suit was disposed of by
judgment and decree dated 11.08.2010 in view of the out-of-court settlement
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2 of 7
W.P.No.24223 of 2010
between the parties. The documents on record also reflect that a subsequent
suit, O.S.No.139 of 2010, had been filed by the Petitioner before the
Principal District Court, Ambur, seeking declarations in respect of the age of
superannuation of the Petitioner and a letter dated 10.09.2010, and for
consequential relief. The present writ petition is filed in order to claim
salary for the period commencing from October 2009.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the writ
petition is maintainable because the third Respondent performs public
functions and is funded by the State. She further contends that O.S.No.80
of 2009 was withdrawn on account of the settlement arrived at between the
Petitioner and the third Respondent, in terms of which it was agreed that the
Petitioner would be provided employment from 11.08.2010 to 16.10.2014.
4. Learned counsel for the State contends that the Petitioner has
filed two civil suits against the third Respondent and, in such circumstances,
the Petitioner cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution, especially to claim monetary relief.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
3 of 7
W.P.No.24223 of 2010
5. Learned counsel for the third Respondent submits that the writ
petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the third Respondent is admittedly
a private hospital. In addition, it is submitted that the third Respondent is
not functioning right now and is under the administrative control of the
learned Administrator who is in-charge of all institutions under a particular
Synod of the Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church. Accordingly, he
reiterates that the writ petition is liable to be rejected.
6. Upon consideration of the submissions of the respective
counsel and on examining the relevant records, it is evident that the third
Respondent is a private hospital against which two civil suits were filed
previously by the Petitioner. The documents on record do not disclose
whether the third Respondent is funded by the State Government or not. In
addition, the amount claimed towards salary arrears by the Petitioner from
the third Respondent is unclear from the affidavit and the documents on
record. When the above facts and circumstances are considered in totality,
this is clearly not a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction especially
for the grant of monetary relief.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
4 of 7
W.P.No.24223 of 2010
7. However, in view of the fact that the third respondent is said to
be under the control of the learned Administrator, who is a former Judge of
this Court, it is open to the Petitioner to submit a representation to the
learned Administrator making a claim for the unpaid salary dues. If such
representation is submitted, the learned Administrator is requested to
examine the same and respond thereto. In the alternative, it will also be open
to the Petitioner to make a representation to the second Respondent in
connection with the non-payment of salary. If such representation is
submitted, the second Respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the
same by a reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of
receipt thereof. It is made clear that the merits of the monetary claim have
not been considered or adjudicated.
8. W.P.No.24223 of 2010 is disposed of on the above terms and
without any order as to costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.
25.06.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
rrg
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
5 of 7
W.P.No.24223 of 2010
To
1.The Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 001.
2.The District Collector,
Vellore District,
Vellore.
3.The Director,
Bethesda Hospital,
Ambur,
Vellore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
6 of 7
W.P.No.24223 of 2010
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY J.,
rrg
W.P.No.24223 of 2010
25.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
7 of 7
