Madras High Court
M.Prasanna vs The Agriculture Production ... on 19 October, 2022
W.P(MD)No.24047 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19.10.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.24047 of 2022
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.18144 of 2022
M.Prasanna ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Agriculture Production Commissioner
Cum Principal Secretary to the Government,
Agriculture Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
2.The Director of Agriculture,
Office of the Director of Agriculture,
Chepauk, Chennai - 5.
3.The Project Director,
ATMA / Joint Director of Agriculture,
Office of the Joint Director of Agriculture,
Madurai.
4.New Life Placements Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by its Authorized Signatory,
Registered Office - 41-42,
Kailash Arcade, Heber Road,
Beema Nagar, Trichy - 620 001. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.P(MD)No.24047 of 2022
records pertaining to the undated impugned order issued by the respondent
No.4 dated NIL and the consequential impugned order in
Ka.No. ATMA/18169/2021 dated 08.09.2022 on the file of the respondent No.3
and quash the same as illegal and consequently for a direction, directing the
respondent No.1 to 3 to reinstate the petitioner in the post of Assistant
Technology Manager at Kottampatti Block, Madurai District or in any other
vacant place within the time period stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy.
For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Manikkam,
Spl. Government Pleader for R1 to R3.
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned Special
Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3.
2.The writ petitioner has been engaged as a contract employee by the
third respondent to implement certain schemes. The third respondent had
originally entered into an agreement with an outsourcing agency namely, the
fourth respondent who identified a set of persons including the writ petitioner to
work as contractual employee for the third respondent. When such persons filed
a batch of writ petitions before me in (W.P.(MD)No.1627 of 2018 etc.), vide
order dated 22.03.2018, I had issued the following directions:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.24047 of 2022
“7.This Court finds considerable force in the aforesaid
submission of the learned Special Government Pleader for the
State Government. This is not a Public Interest Litigation. The
petitioners rights have not been shown to be infringed in any
manner by issuance of the impugned Government order made in
these Writ Petitions. The order impugned in these Writ Petitions
are therefore, sustained. But then the Writ Petitions cannot be
closed with this. During the course of arguments, the learned
Special Government Pleader supported the artificial break in the
services of the writ petitioners. Hence this Court issues the
following directions:-
(i).It is made clear that the scheme appointees could have
no claim for regularisation. But then so long as the scheme
continues, subject to one being fit and not found guilty of any
misconduct, the scheme appointee can continue in the said post
so long as the scheme is in force.
(ii).The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in
1985 4 SCC 43-(Rattan Lal & Others Vs. State of Haryana &
Others), deplored the practice of giving artificial break in
service. The state Government is expected to function as a model
employer. This proposition continues to hold good even in this
age of liberalisation and globalisation. The aforesaid judgment
was relied on in the subsequent Full Bench decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1991) 2 SCC 599-(Sri
Rabinarayan Mohapatra Vs. State of Orissa and others). The
very same principle has been reiterated in yet another decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2009) 6 SCC 611-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.24047 of 2022
(MD.Abdul Kadir & Another Vs. Director General of Police,
Assam & others). Therefore, it cannot lie in the mouth of the
State Government to now contend that they are entitled to
terminate the services of the contractual employee on the expiry
of the 11th month and give artificial break after which engage
them again. This Court makes it clear that the practice of giving
artificial breaks shall be discontinued henceforth. The benefits
payable to the petitioners/Scheme appointees in terms of the
scheme norms, shall be disbursed. In view of the comprehensive
nature of the relief given to the petitioners herein, there shall be
of no claim for payment of past arrears. However, as regards the
future, it is undertaken by the Government that the
periodical/annual increment will be given effect in terms of the
scheme regulations.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that contrary to
the said directions, the petitioner has been ousted. The fourth respondent had
issued communication terminating the writ petitioner's services as Assistant
Technology Manager in ATMA Scheme under the Agriculture Department,
Madurai. Following the same, the third respondent had also issued the
impugned communication dated 08.09.2022 informing the petitioner that he can
no longer be engaged. Challenging the said communication, the present writ
petition has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.24047 of 2022
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated all the contentions set
out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. He pointed out that the
role of the fourth respondent/outsourcing agency ended at the moment it
identified the writ petitioner for engagement as a contract employee to the third
respondent. The fourth respondent has not right or jurisdiction to terminate the
writ petitioner and the petitioner is even entitled to ignore the same. He pointed
out that the third respondent could not have thrown out the writ petitioner
without holding an enquiry and without finding him guilty. He therefore called
upon this Court to set aside the impugned communication issued by the third
respondent and direct the third respondent to continue to engage the writ
petitioner.
5.I am not persuaded by the submissions advanced by the learned counsel
for the writ petitioner. The learned Special Government Pleader, on
instructions, fairly admitted that the writ petitioner is being directly paid by the
third respondent. But the third respondent had not arbitrarily terminated the
petitioner's engagement. A major scam involving a few crores of rupees and
misappropriation of the scheme funds was noticed leading to registration of
criminal case by CBCID (Crime No.5 of 20202 on the file of CBCID, Madurai).
Though the petitioner's name does not figure in the FIR, during investigation,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.24047 of 2022
CBCID had concluded that the petitioner is also involved. He was arrested and
he was in custody for over 21 days. The learned Special Government Pleader
would point out that even though the criminal case was registered way back in
the year 2020, the impugned communication came to be issued only on
08.09.2022. In other words, only by taking note of the petitioner's involvement
in CBCID case, a decision was taken not to engage the writ petitioner. It is
true that I have directed that ATMA scheme employees should not be thrown
out unless they are found guilty of misconduct. This can only be understood by
me that there cannot be any arbitrary disengagement. When the petitioner is
figuring as an accused in a case of misappropriation of funds, the employer
cannot be expected to continue to engage the writ petitioner. If the writ
petitioner is a regular government servant, then the position will be different.
He will have to be suspended from service and enquiry will have to be held.
But such elaborate procedure need not be followed in the case of scheme
employees who are engaged purely on contract basis. I, therefore, do not fault
the impugned communication issued by the third respondent. If the petitioner's
name is deleted from the final report or if he is discharged and if he otherwise
comes clean in the criminal case, then his earlier status will be restored.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.24047 of 2022
6.With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
19.10.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
ias
To:-
1.The Agriculture Production Commissioner
Cum Principal Secretary to the Government,
Agriculture Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
2.The Director of Agriculture,
Office of the Director of Agriculture,
Chepauk, Chennai - 5.
3.The Project Director,
ATMA / Joint Director of Agriculture,
Office of the Joint Director of Agriculture,
Madurai.
4.New Life Placements Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by its Authorized Signatory,
Registered Office - 41-42,
Kailash Arcade, Heber Road,
Beema Nagar, Trichy - 620 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.24047 of 2022
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
ias
W.P(MD)No.24047 of 2022
19.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
