Madras High Court
D.Gopinath vs The Special Commissioner on 15 June, 2022
W.P.No.92 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.06.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.92 of 2015
D.Gopinath ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Special Commissioner
and the Secretary to Govt.,
Department of Transport
Secretariat,
Fort St.George
Chennai – 600 009.
2.Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Salem) Limited
Rep by its Managing Director
Salem Division
12, Ramakrishna Salai
Salem - 636007 ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, call for the records
pertaining to the order made in Ku.A.No.L3-46087-TNTC(Se)-2005 dated
26.08.2006 and subsequent order made in Ka.No. E2/18173/TNTC(Salem)
/2014 dated 22.09.2014 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same
and further directing the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner in
service as Conductor and further absorb him on regular scale of pay with
effect from 1998.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 6
W.P.No.92 of 2015
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Pugazhenthi
For R1 : Mr.M.Bindran
Additional Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.A.Sundaravadanan
ORDER
The order dated 19.06.2006 and further communication dated
22.09.2014 are under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The writ petitioner was working as a daily wage conductor from
the year 1998 to 2004. The petitioner states that he submitted a
representation to absorb him as permanent employee. No action was taken
by the respondents and he filed a writ petition in W.P.No.30038 of 2005
and this Court passed an order on 19.04.2006 directing the respondents to
pass orders in terms of paragraph 34(iii) of the judgment passed in
W.A.No.2985 of 2003.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that no
action was taken by the respondents during the relevant point of time
during the year 2006. The petitioner was submitting several
representations, which were not considered. However, finally the
respondents have issued an order on 26.08.2006 rejecting the claim of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.92 of 2015
writ petitioner, thereafter also the writ petitioner submitted representation
on several occasions and again the order of rejection was passed on
22.09.2004. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ
petition.
4. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was engaged as daily
wage conductor on account of certain administrative exigences and the
services were discharged during the year 2004. No doubt, the petitioner
field the writ petition pursuant to the order of this Court, the case of the
writ petitioner was considered and final order was passed by the
competent authority namely the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State
Transport Corporation, Salem in proceedings dated 26.08.2006. The said
order was not challenged during the relevant point of time and now after a
lapse of about 9 years, the petitioner has chosen to file the present writ
petition challenging the order passed in year 2006.
5. With reference to the order dated 22.09.2014, which is also
impugned, the learned counsel for the respondents reiterated that it is only
intimation issued pursuant to the order of rejection dated 26.08.2006 and
the intimation dated 22.09.2014 is challenged only to over come the delay
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.92 of 2015
in filing the writ petition and therefore, the writ petition is to be rejected.
6. This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner
admittedly was serving as daily wage conductor from 1998 to 2004, based
on the order passed in W.P filed by the writ petitioner, the respondents
have taken a decision and passed order on 26.08.2006. The petitioner has
not chosen to challenge the said order during the relevant point of time
and thereafter, submitted a representation and the said representation was
replied by the respondents in proceedings dated 22.09.2014 and the said
communication cannot be construed as an initial cause for the purpose of
filing the writ petition.
7. The claim of the writ petitioner was rejected in the year 2006
itself, further he was engaged as daily wages employee and therefore, he is
not entitled for permanent absorption in violation of the service rules in
force. This apart, the writ petition itself is filed after a lapse of several
years from the date of rejection order and thus, the relief of reinstatement
at this length of time deserves no further consideration.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.92 of 2015
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
15.06.2022
Jeni/Mrm
Index : Yes
Speaking order : Yes
To
1.The Special Commissioner
and the Secretary to Govt.,
Department of Transport
Secretariat,
Fort St.George
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Salem) Limited
Salem Division
12, Ramakrishna Salai
Salem - 636007
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.92 of 2015
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Jeni/Mrm
W.P.No.92 of 2015
15.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
