Madras High Court
B.Selvambigai vs The Joint Registrar/Revision Officer on 30 November, 2023
W.P.No.7747 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.P.No.7747 of 2011
B.Selvambigai ...Petitioner
vs.
1.The Joint Registrar/Revision Officer,
O/o.The Joint Registrar of Co.op Societies,
Cuddalore Division,
Cuddalore,
Cuddalore District.
2.The Deputy Registrar,
O/o.The Deputy Registrar of Co.op Societies,
Virudhachalam Circle,
Cuddalore District.
3.The Special Officer,
I.I.604, Paravalur Primary Agricultural,
Co.Operative Bank,
Kokkur Road,
Paravalur (Post),
Virudhachalam (Taluk),
Cuddalore District. ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the
proceedings of the 1st respondent in Aa.thi.mu.6066/2010 thu va tha.1 dated
26.08.2010 and the consequential order passed by the 1st respondent in review
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petition in Aa.thi.mu 7600/2010 thu va tha dated 10.11.2010 and quash the same
1/6
W.P.No.7747 of 2010
and consequently direct the 1st respondent to pass orders on the revision petition
on merits within reasonable time.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Balachandran
For Respondents : Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai for R1 & R2
Government Advocate
Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram for R3
ORDER
The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the first
respondent dated 26.08.2010 and the consequential order passed by the first
respondent in the Revision Petition dated 10.11.2010 and consequently direct
the first respondent to pass orders on the Revision Petition on merits in a
reasonable time.
2.Heard Mr.D.Balachandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents 1 & 2 and Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram, learned counsel appearing
for the third respondent.
3.Mr.D.Balachandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that she was appointed as an Attender on consolidated pay on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10.03.2001 in the third respondent bank. She was also conferred with the time
scale of pay of Rs.1895-5165 and was also conferred with Dearness Allowance
and other benefits. But on 31.08.2001 without any notice or enquiry, the
petitioner was retrenched from service without following the due process as
contemplated under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Challenging the same, the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.11862
of 2003 wherein, this Court by order dated 06.08.2003 had disposed the Writ
Petition on the terms of the Division Bench judgment in the case of L.Justine
and Another vs. The Registrar of Co.op Societies, Chennai-10 and 2 others
reported in (2002) 4 CTC 385.
4.He would further submit that thereafter, the petitioner had preferred a
Revision Petition before the first respondent. However in filing the Revision
Petition there had occasioned a delay which was returned indicating that the
same had been preferred beyond the period of limitation. However, on a wrong
advice, the petitioner had again preferred the Revision Petition along with an
application to condone the delay which had again been rejected indicating that
the claim of the petitioner could not be considered. He would further submit
that the petitioner has good chances of success in the Revision Petition and
therefore, the first respondent should consider the case on merits and not on
technicalities.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5.Countering his arguments, Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai, learned Government
Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 would rely upon a judgment of
this Court in the case of N.P.Palanisamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by
Secretary to Government, Food & Co-operation Department, Fort St.George,
Chennai and 3 others reported in (2012) 4 CTC 257 had held that the
provisions of Section 153(1) are only directory and not mandatory as provision
empowers the Registrar to revise an order on its own motion and has held that
there is no limitation to prefer a revision and there was no question of
condonation of delay. In view of the aforesaid judgment, he would submit that
the order impugned could be set aside and direct the respondents to consider the
Revision Petition on merits.
6.I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing on either
side and perused the judgment of this Court reported in 2012 4 CTC 257 and
also the materials available on record.
7.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents 1 & 2, there is no provision of condonation of delay and the
Limitation Act does not apply to the Revision Petition. In view of the aforesaid
judgment, I am inclined to set aside the order impugned in this Writ Petition and
direct the respondents to take on file the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and to dispose of the same on merits after affording an opportunity to the
petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
8.In fine, the Writ Petition is allowed with the aforesaid direction. There
shall be no order as to costs.
30.11.2023
Index: Yes/No
Speaking order: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
pam
To
1.The Joint Registrar/Revision Officer,
O/o.The Joint Registrar of Co.op Societies,
Cuddalore Division,
Cuddalore,
Cuddalore District.
2.The Deputy Registrar,
O/o.The Deputy Registrar of Co.op Societies,
Virudhachalam Circle,
Cuddalore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
pam
30.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
