Madras High Court
D.Velmani vs The Executive Director ... on 20 July, 2023
WRIT APPEAL(MD)No.1104 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
WRIT APPEAL(MD)No.1104 of 2023
and
CMP(MD)No.8490 of 2023
D.Velmani : Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Executive Director (Personnel),
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Central Office, Jeevan Bema Marg,
Mumbai-400 021.
2.The Senior Divisional Managr,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Divisional Office, Thanjavur.
3.The Branch Manager,
CA Branch, “Jeevan Prakash”
Ground Floor, Gandhiji Road,
Thanjavur. : Respondents/Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WRIT APPEAL(MD)No.1104 of 2023
Prayer:
Writ Appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set
aside the order, dated 24.06.2022 made in W.P.(MD)No.4328 of 2019.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Arulvadivel @ Sekar
Senior Advocate
for Mr.S.Sankarapandian
For Respondents : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
JUDGMENT
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single
Judge of this Court, dated 24.06.2022 in W.P.(MD)No.4328 of 2019, in
and by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed
by the appellant. In the writ petition, the appellant challenged circular,
dated 30.09.2015 and consequently, the charge memo issued to the
appellant dated 07.02.2019 and prayed for quashing the same.
2. The case of the appellant is that he was appointed as a Sweeper
on compassionate ground on 17.09.2003. His educational qualification
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WRIT APPEAL(MD)No.1104 of 2023
was only sixth standard. Thereafter, he was promoted as Record Clerk.
For appointment to the post of Cashier, a clarification was issued on
16.05.2009 by a circular that the panel of officiating Cashiers would
include all confirmed Class III employees. On the basis of the impugned
circular, the respondents included the appellant in the panel of officiating
Cashier. Since the appellant did not have the requisite qualification and
computer knowledge, by his letter dated 27.11.2018, the appellant
requested that he be dropped from the panel. However, by an order dated
03.12.2018, the said request was refused and repeatedly thereafter, by
several letters, the appellant was directed to act as officiating Cashier.
Since the appellant did not obey the orders of the superiors and did not
function as Cashier, a charge memorandum, dated 07.02.2019 was
issued. Under these circumstances, the appellant challenged both the
circular as well as the charge memorandum.
3. The learned Single Judge of this Court found that the contention
of the appellant that he did not have the qualification is not a ground for
quashing the impugned circular as selection to the post of Cashier is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WRIT APPEAL(MD)No.1104 of 2023
different from officiating in the said post. Since the appellant's challenge
to the circular was rejected, the consequential challenge to the charge
memorandum was also rejected and the writ petition was dismissed.
Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is preferred by the
appellant.
4. Heard Mr.C.Arulvadivel @ Sekar, learned Senior Counsel
representing for Mr.S.Sankarapandian, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant and Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents.
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would
submit that the appellant had studied only upto sixth standard and since
he did not have computer knowledge, he was unable to carry on the said
functions. But though for convenience later on the appellant has taken
such a stand, originally, his representation to the Branch Manager reads
as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WRIT APPEAL(MD)No.1104 of 2023
“jw;NghJ ehd; SC/ST eyr;rq;fj;jpy; jw;NghJ ,Ug;gjhy;
Nkw;fz;l njhopw;rq;fj;jpd; J}z;Ljypd; NghpYk; eph;thfk;
njhopw;rq;fj;NjhL ifNfhh;j;Jf; nfhz;L vd;id fhrhsh;
gl;baypy; Nrh;j;J vd;id fhrhsh; gzp nra;jpLkhW
tw;GWj;Jfpd;wdh;. ,jw;F rhd;whf ehd; CAB, Thanjavur
fpisapy; 2013-y; Fk;gNfhzk;-2 fpisapypUe;J khw;wyhfp
jw;NghJ tiu RC Mf gzpGhpe;J nfhz;L tUfpNwd;.
mg;NghjpypUe;J ,g;NghJ ,e;j fbjk; vOJk; tiu ehd;
gzpGhpAk; ,e;j fpis mYtyfj;jpy; xU ehs; $l fhrhsuhf
gzpGhpa vd;id njhopw;rq;fj;jpd; tw;GWj;jypd; Nghpy;
eph;thfk; vd;id mDkjpj;jJ ,y;iy. jw;NghJ ehd;
njhopw;rq;fj;jpypUe;J ey rq;fj;jpw;F te;jjpypUe;J vd;id
fhrhsuhf gzpGhpa eph;thfk; tw;GWj;JfpwJ. xU Fwpg;gpl;l
njhopw;rq;fj;jpd; J}z;Ljypd; Nghpy; vd;di tw;GWj;JtJk;>
njhlh;e;J gaKWj;JtJk; vdf;F kpFe;j kd cisr;riy
Vw;gLj;jpAs;sJ. xU mbg;gil J}a;ik gzpahsh;
gzpapypUe;J te;j vd;id mjpfhuj;ij gad;gLj;jp nfhLik
nra;Ak; jq;fs; kPJk;> J}z;Ljyha; ,Ug;gth;fs; kPJk; SC/ST
td;nfhLik jLg;G rl;lj;jpd; fPo; (,J mjpfhuj;ij
J\;gpuNahfk; nra;Ak; mjpfhhpfSf;Fk; nghUe;Jk;) chpa
mjpfhhpfsplk; Gfhh; nra;a NehpLk; vd;gij ,jd; %yk;
njhptpj;Jf;nfhs;fpNwd;>”
6. Thus, it can be seen that the appellant has alleged discrimination
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WRIT APPEAL(MD)No.1104 of 2023
and mala fide and had threatened to complain under the Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. When the
employer thinks it fit that the employee is capable of performing the
work and when the rules provide that the record clerks can also be in the
officiating panel, merely because, the appellant was promoted as record
clerk by dispensing with the requisite educational qualifications it cannot
be said that the impugned circular would be bad in law. Similarly, when
the appellant has accepted the promotion for the post of record clerk and
is discharging duties of the said post, he cannot by way of
insubordination totally refuse to perform the duties of the Cashier, which
was only required of him officiating basis. If he has any difficulty, after
assuming the seat, to work on day to day basis, he could have asked for
the assistance or help from the superiors/co-employees and in a
threatening manner, he insubordinated himself and therefore, now he is
trying to take advantage of his own lack of qualification to challenge the
circular and the charge memorandum.
7. In that view of the matter, there is no illegality whatsoever in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WRIT APPEAL(MD)No.1104 of 2023
impugned circular as well as consequential charge memorandum and
therefore, this appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. However,
there shall be no orders as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
[S.S.S.R., J.] [D.B.C., J.]
20.07.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
sji
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WRIT APPEAL(MD)No.1104 of 2023
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J.
sji
WRIT APPEAL(MD)No.1104 of 2023
20.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
