Madras High Court
Employees Co-Operative Thrift ... vs V.Arivel Nedunchelian on 27 September, 2022
W.A.No.2199 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.09.2022
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.2199 of 2022
and
C.M.P. No.16470 of 2022
1.The Secretary
Government of Tamil Nadu
Tamil Nadu Co-operation,
Food and Consumer Protection Department,
St.George Fort, Chennai.
2.The Registrar of co-operative societies,
170, EVR Periyar Road,
Kilpauk, Chennai – 10.
3.The Regional Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Tirunelveli Region 2,
Survigner Street, Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli – 2.
4.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Tirunelveli Circle,
Perumalpuram, Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli – 7.
5.The Special Officer / Liquidator,
T.T.109, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2199 of 2022
Employees Co-operative Thrift and Credit
Society Limited, University Campus,
Abisekapatty, Tirunelveli.
Now Office at
Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Perumalpuram, Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli – 7. ... Appellants
Vs.
V.Arivel Nedunchelian ... Respondent
Appeal preferred under Clause XV of Letters Patent against the order
dated 18.11.2019 made in W.P.(MD) No.17374 of 2015.
For Appellants : Mr.J.C.Durairaj
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.R.Subburaj
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY.,J)
This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single
Judge dated 18.11.2019 passed in W.P. (MD) No.17374 of 2015, in and by
which, the writ petition filed by the respondent / writ petitioner was allowed
by the learned single Judge with a direction to the respondents herein to
consider the services of the writ petitioner from 03.04.1997 till 31.07.2008
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2199 of 2022
for the grant of benefit of time scale of pay with effect from the date of
initial appointment i.e., from 03.04.1997 onwards.
2. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf
of the appellants would submit that the initial appointment of the writ
petitioner was not through employment exchange and therefore was a back-
door entry. Further, the writ petitioner was also over-aged at the time of
appointment. Therefore, in view of the irregularity in his appointment, the
benefit of time scale of pay cannot be granted from 03.04.1997. It has been
rightly granted from 01.08.2008. Therefore the learned single Judge ought
not to have interfered with the same in the writ petition filed by the
respondent herein.
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent/ writ petitioner would submit that in para 3 of the affidavit filed
in support of the writ petition, the writ petitioner has clearly stated about the
continuity of service. He was appointed on 02.04.1997 and while he was
working as a clerk in the fifth respondent/ co-operative society, he applied
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2199 of 2022
for the post of Secretary and upon being selected, he was relieved from his
erstwhile post and therefore, his service being continuous in nature and the
pay protection having been granted with effect from the year 2008, ought to
have been granted from the date of initial appointment itself.
3.1 Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the
original prayer of the writ petitioner for pay protection was rejected by the
appellants by the order passed in the year 2005 and challenging the same, he
had earlier filed W.P. (MD) No.9889 of 2009 and this Court after
considering the Government orders passed on the subject, directed the
appellants to consider the case of the writ petitioner by granting age
relaxation and to grant his time scale of pay. However, while considering
the case of the writ petitioner as per the directions of this Court in the earlier
writ petition, the appellants granted the time scale of pay only with effect
from 01.08.2008. According to the learned counsel, the said date is artificial
and therefore, the learned single Judge has rightly interfered with the same
in the writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2199 of 2022
4. We have heard the rival contentions on either side and perused
the material records of the case.
5. The only ground on which the writ appeal was filed and the
order of the learned single Judge is assailed is on the fact that the
appointment of the writ petitioner was irregular in the sense that it was not
by way of following due procedure and the age relaxation was not granted.
As far as age relaxation is concerned, we see from the material records of
the case that pursuant to the subsequent Government Orders, this Court had
earlier directed the appellants to consider the case of the writ petitioner for
relaxing the condition and pursuant to the same, the appellants themselves
have passed an order granting the benefit of time scale of pay. However, the
said order has been restricted only with effect from 01.08.2008.
6. When the petitioner's employment has been treated as valid for
one purpose, just for another purpose of granting time scale of pay alone, it
cannot be contended as irregular or illegal, especially when the writ
petitioner has put in his service and earned his salary. Once the appellants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2199 of 2022
have decided to grant time scale of pay as per the Government Order,
restricting it from the year 2008 only on the ground of irregularity in the
initial appointment cannot stand as the same cannot be a valid or relevant
consideration and therefore we find that the learned single Judge has rightly
interfered in the matter and allowed the writ petition filed by the writ
petitioner.
7. Accordingly, finding no merits, this writ appeal is dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(P.U., J) (D.B.C., J)
27.09.2022
Index:No
mmi/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2199 of 2022
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
mmi
W.A.No.2199 of 2022
27.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
