Madras High Court
M.Lawrence vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 9 November, 2021
W.P(MD).No.2624 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED:09.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
W.P.(MD).No.2624, 2625 and 2627 of 2018
W.P.(MD).No.2624 of 2018
M.Lawrence
... Petitioner
vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
represented by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Rural Development Department,
Chennai.
2.The Director,
Rural Development and Panchayatraj Department,
Panagal Building,
Saidapet,
Chennai 15.
3.The Accountant General,
(Accounts & Entitlements Tamil Nadu),
361, Anna Salai,
Chennai -78.
4.The District Collector,
Office of the Collectorate,
Kanyakumari District,
Nagercoil.
... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.2624 of 2018
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the
second respondent herein to consider the proceedings of the fourth
respondent in No.E1/42325/2016, dated 03.07.2017 and to extend the
benefits of G.O.(Ms).No.85, Rural Development and Panchayatraj (PA-4)
Department, dated 11.09.2012 and G.O.(Ms.).No.162, Rural
Development and Panchayatraj (PA-4) Department, dated 23.12.2014 to
the petitioner, in the light of order of the W.P.(MD).Nos.5049 and 5607
of 2015, dated 27.04.2015.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.P.Muthupandian
For R1, R2 & R4 : Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan
Standing counsel for the State
W.P.(MD).No.2625 of 2018
V.Gnanasigamony
... Petitioner
vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
represented by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Rural Development Department,
Chennai.
2.The Director,
Rural Development and Panchayatraj Department,
Panagal Building,
Saidapet,
Chennai 15.
3.The Accountant General,
(Accounts & Entitlements Tamil Nadu),
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.2624 of 2018
361, Anna Salai,
Chennai -78.
4.The District Collector,
Office of the Collectorate,
Kanyakumari District,
Nagercoil.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the
second respondent herein to consider the proceedings of the fourth
respondent in No.E1/5552/2016, dated 19.08.2016 and to extend the
benefits of G.O.(Ms).No.85, Rural Development and Panchayatraj (PA-4)
Department, dated 11.09.2012 and G.O.(Ms.).No.162, Rural
Development and Panchayatraj (PA-4) Department, dated 23.12.2014 to
the petitioner, in the light of order of the W.P.(MD).Nos.5049 and 5607
of 2015, dated 27.04.2015.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.P.Muthupandian
For R1, R2 & R4 : Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan
Standing counsel for the State
W.P.(MD).No.2627 of 2018
1.N.Somasundaram
2.S.Balakrishnan
3.V.Ramasamy
4.M.S.Iruthayaraj
5.P.Soman
6.A.Gurusamy
... Petitioners
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.2624 of 2018
vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
represented by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Rural Development Department,
Chennai.
2.The Director,
Rural Development and Panchayatraj Department,
Panagal Building,
Saidapet,
Chennai 15.
3.The Accountant General,
(Accounts & Entitlements Tamil Nadu),
361, Anna Salai,
Chennai -78.
4.The District Collector,
Office of the Collectorate,
Kanyakumari District,
Nagercoil.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,
calling for the records relating to the common impugned proceedings in
e.f.g;.gp2/2568/2016, dated 17.11.2017 passed by the fourth respondent
herein and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents
herein to extend the benefits of G.O.(Ms).No.85, Rural Development and
Panchayatraj (PA-4) Department, dated 11.09.2012 and G.O.(Ms.).No.
162, Rural Development and Panchayatraj (PA-4) Department, dated
23.12.2014 to the petitioner, in the light of order of the W.P.(MD).Nos.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.2624 of 2018
5049 and 5607 of 2015, dated 27.04.2015.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.P.Muthupandian
For R1, R2 & R4 : Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan
Standing counsel for the State
COMMON ORDER
This batch of three writ petitions have been filed by eight Block
Development Officers, who retired from service on 31.06.1998,
31.05.1995, 31.05.1998, 30.06.1999, 31.07.1995, 31.05.2002,
30.09.1997 and 30.04.2005. The petitioners were initially appointed as
Rural Welfare Officers, underwent training at the Government Training
Centres for the stipulated period and after completion of training, were
deputed as Grama Sevaks in various locations, retiring as Block
Development Officers on the aforesaid dates.
2. The State of Tamil Nadu passed G.O.(Ms.).No.1373, P & AR
(Per.B) Department, dated 26.12.1979 and thereafter, G.O.(Ms.).No.610,
P & A (Per.M), dated 28.06.1982, to the effect that the period of training
wherever prescribed in direct recruitment posts in State and Subordinate
Services, should count both for probation and increment. Thus, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.2624 of 2018
petitioners in W.P.(MD).No.2627 of 2018 made a representation seeking
the benefits under the aforesaid G.Os. and the representation dated
07.11.2017 came to be rejected, by proceedings of the fourth respondent
ie., the District Collector, R4, vide impugned order, dated 17.11.2017.
3. The reasoning adduced by R4 is to the effect that the petitioners
have not approached this Court by way of specific writ petitions seeking
relief under the G.Os. and in seeking such relief have merely relied upon
orders passed in the case of other identically placed employees.
According to R4, unless a specific representation and claim had been
made by the petitioners in this regard, their claim was not liable to be
considered favourably.
4. As far as the petitioners in the two other writ petitions are
concerned, ie., W.P.(MD).Nos.2624 and 2625 of 2018, no representation
appears to have been made by them and all they seek is to be granted the
same benefit as granted in the case of other identically placed employees.
For this purpose, they rely upon proceedings of R4, dated 19.08.2016,
granting them the benefits of the two Government Orders as cited
aforesaid, as well as orders passed in W.P.(MD).Nos.5049 and 5607 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.2624 of 2018
2015, dated 27.04.2015.
5. This Court, by order dated 27.04.2015, has granted the identical
benefits as sought for by the petitioners before me, in the case of 16
retired Block Development Officers and paragraph No.5 of the order is
extracted below:
“5.In view of the admitted facts, it is obligatory on
the part of the respondents to treat the petitioners alike.
Hence, there shall be a mandamus to the respondents to
pay increments and other monitory benefits to the
petitioners for the training period in the posts held by the
petitioners continuously upto the date of retirement and
consequently grant increments and pensionary benefits and
revise the monthly pension of the petitioners, with all
monetary and other benefits. Eight weeks time from the
date of receipt of the order is given for processing and
implementation of the orders.”
6. A tentative attempt is made by the learned counsel appearing for
R3, relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of C.Jacob vs. Director of Geology and Mining, Trichy reported in (2018
(10) SCC 115), to the effect that the impugned communication dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.2624 of 2018
17.11.2017, is only a response to representation made by the petitioners
and it will not, by itself, revitalise a stale claim.
7. The order of rejection does not state anywhere that the claims
made of the petitioners was stale and the only reason adduced is that the
petitioners have not approached the Court by way of a separate writ
petition. In my view, this reasoning is liable to be rejected straightaway
in light of the proceedings of the Director of Rural Development and
Panchayat Raj, R2, dated 28.12.2015.
8. The aforesaid communication captures the gist of the issue
under resolution and R2, in conclusion states, that the claims of similarly
placed persons must be considered, subject to their furnishing sufficient
proof of employment, even if they have not approached the Court.
9. He goes on to say that such claims must be considered upon
they furnishing sufficient proof, without even the necessity for a counter
need to be filed in such matters. The intention of the respondents to
settle claims raised on this score, without agitating the same, is thus
apparent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.2624 of 2018
10. Communication dated 28.12.2015 is extracted in full:-
“Many of the staff recruited as Grama Sevak/RWO
Grade II and undergone training in the cadre of Grama
Sevak/RWO Grade II and retired subsequently in various
posts in Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department
have filed Writ Petitions in the Madras High Court and
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court with a prayer as
specified below:
I. To pay increments for the training period in the
post held by them as on 30.7.1992 continuously up to the date
of retirement.
II. And consequently take into account the said
increments in the pensionary benefits and in the monthly
pension.
III. With all monetary and other attendant benefits as
per G.O(Ms) No. 85, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj
Department, dated 11.09.2012 based upon the order passed
by the Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.33981/2005 and 39046/2005
dated 05.07.2011.
In this regard, the following decisions were taken in the
meeting with Finance Secretary on 04.11.2015 to avoid
further litigation.
1. Cases of similarly placed persons covered in various
judgments can be considered, if they furnish sufficient
proof for their employment without approaching the
Court.
2. Cases of those individuals who have already
approached the Court can also be considered if they
furnish sufficient proof. In such cases, instead of filing
Reply Affidavit, Court may be informed of the action
taken by the Department to settle the issue.
3. Cases of those individuals who have furnished
sufficient proof and withdraw the Court case may also
be considered.
4. In all such cases, the department should satisfy the
correctness of the proof furnished by the individuals,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.2624 of 2018
process and settle the issue.”
11. In the light of the discussion as aforesaid, order dated
17.11.2017 impugned in W.P.(MD).No.2627 of 2018 is set aside R1 shall
sanction/approve the claim of the petitioners and forward said approval
to R3, who shall act upon the same and pay over the amounts due, within
a period of three weeks from date of receipt of approval from R1.
12. In the case of the other petitioners, let a representation be made
by them before R2 enclosing proof of their period of service, upon
receipt of which, necessary approval shall be given by R1, within a
period of one week from the date of receipt of representation and R3 is
directed to pay over the amount due to them, within a period of three
weeks from the date of receipt of approval.
13. These Writ petitions are allowed. No costs.
09.11.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet:Yes
akv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.2624 of 2018
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.
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Rural Development Department,
Chennai.
2.The Director,
Rural Development and Panchayatraj Department,
Panagal Building,
Saidapet,
Chennai 15.
3.The Accountant General,
(Accounts & Entitlements Tamil Nadu),
361, Anna Salai,
Chennai -78.
4.The District Collector,
Office of the Collectorate,
Kanyakumari District,
Nagercoil.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.2624 of 2018
DR.ANITA SUMANTH,J.
akv
ORDER MADE IN
W.P.(MD).No.2624, 2625 and 2627 of 2018
09.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
