Madras High Court
R.M.Partheeban (Deceased) vs The Assistant Director Of Survey ... on 18 April, 2022
W.A.Nos.108 and 109 of 2013
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated : 18.04.2022
Coram
The Honourable Mr.Justice S. VAIDYANATHAN
and
The Hon'ble Mrs.Justice N. MALA
Writ Appeal Nos.108 and 109 of 2013
1. R.M.Partheeban (deceased)
2. P. Sakunthala
3. P.Boopathi
4. P.Saraswathi
5. P.Gowri
(Appellants 2 to 5 are substituted as LRs of
the deceased sole appellant vide orders dt.
10.10.2012 and 13.12.20212 made in
MP Nos.3 and 3 of 2012 in WASR Nos.30408
and 30409 of 2011.)
.... Appellants in both the appeals
..vs..
The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records,
Collectorate, Vellore, Vellore District,
PIN 632 009
... Respondent in W.A.No.108 of 2013
1.The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records,
Collectorate, Vellore, Vellore District,
PIN 632 009
2. The Tahsildar,
Tirupathur,
Vellore District
PIN 635 601.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.108 and 109 of 2013
3. The Commissioner,
Municipal Office,
Tirupathur,
Vellore District.
PIN 635 601 ....Respondents in W.A.No.109 of 2013
Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against
the orders dated 07.02.2011 in W.P.Nos.2513 of 2005 and 46823 of
2006.
For appellants :Mr.PA.Kadirvel
For Respondents :Mr.Abhishek Muthy
Government Advocate
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the court was delivered by S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.,)
W.A.No.109 of 2013:
The appellant before this Court has approached the Tamil Nadu
Administrative Tribunal questioning the transfer order. The said
transfer order was stayed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal
on 22.03.1996. However, the appellant was not provided with the job
and he was continued to be kept under compulsory wait.
2. The appellant has also approached this Court by way of writ
petition directly challenging the impugned order and both the writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.108 and 109 of 2013
petitions have been combined together and a common order was
passed.
3. Admittedly, when there is an interim order staying the
transfer of the appellant, naturally he will have to be reinstated in the
place from where he was transferred and services should have been
regularised for the period from 09.03.1996 to 03.03.1997. The learned
Single Judge has rejected the writ petition on the ground that unless
the writ petition is allowed setting aside the order of transfer, he will
not be entitled to any benefits. The learned Single Judge has also
made an observation that there is no evidence to the fact that after
retirement of the appellant, whether any letter has been given seeking
treatment of the period as leave to which he is eligible without which
he could not have drawn pension.
4. We are of the view that when the order of transfer has been
stayed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the order should
have been given effect to either by reinstating the appellant in the
same position or by payment of salary by keeping the writ petitioner
under compulsory wait. Without doing so, rejecting the request would
only amount to non-compliance of the orders of the Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.108 and 109 of 2013
5. Hence, we are of the view that the order of the learned Single
Judge, not extending the benefits and regularising the period during
which he was made to compulsorily wait i.e., from 09.03.1996 to
03.03.1997, shall be regularised and monetary benefits due to him will
have to be paid.
6. The purpose of granting an interim order would be defeated if
monetary benefits are not extended to the appellant and it would
amount to non-compliance of the order not only by the Department
but also by the Judiciary. Strictly speaking, the writ petitioner could
have filed contempt petition for non-compliance of the order of the
Court and in that event, the respondents would have extended all the
benefits.
7. We are of the view that the appellant is entitled to all the
benefits for the period from 09.03.1996 to 03.03.1997 and the
appellant shall be regularised with all attendant monetary benefits and
the entire period will be taken into account for the purpose of terminal
and other benefits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.108 and 109 of 2013
8. The monetary benefits shall be paid, after adjusting the
amount already paid, if any, within a period of four months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. With the above observation, W.A.No.109 of 2013 is
allowed.
W.A.No.108 of 2013:
In view of the order passed in W.A.No.109 of 2013, no order is
required to be passed in W.A.No.108 of 2013 and that the writ
petitioner has sought for similar relief in two writ petitions, one by
filing a writ petition before this Court and the other before the Tamil
Nadu Administrative Tribunal, which was transferred as writ petition
which resulted as W.A.No.109 of 2013. Therefore, W.A.No.108 of
2013 is closed.
No costs.
(S.V.N.J.,) (N.M.J.,)
18.04.2022
sr
Index:yes/no
website:yes/no
To
1.The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records,
Collectorate, Vellore, Vellore District,
PIN 632 009
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.108 and 109 of 2013
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.,
and
N.MALA,J.,
sr
2. The Tahsildar,
Tirupathur,
Vellore District, PIN 635 601.
3. The Commissioner,
Municipal Office,
Tirupathur,
Vellore District.
PIN 635 601
Writ Appeal Nos.108 and 109 of 2013
18.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
