Madras High Court
B.Gayathri vs The Director Of Treasuries on 15 September, 2023
W.P No.11849 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.09.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
WP No.11849 of 2019
B.Gayathri ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The Director of Treasuries
Directorate of Treasuries and Accounts
Chennai - 600 005.
2. The Joint Director of Treasuries
(Administration)
Directorate of Treasuries and Accounts
Chennai - 600 005.
3. The District Treasury Officer,
Erode. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the
services of the petitioner's deceased husband (R.Ramamoorthy) and to
declare completion of his probation and to grant all consequential benefits
of grant of annual increments and revision of pay and all other benefits and
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.11849 of 2019
to grant DCRG as well as Pensionary benefits with interest on the delayed
payments to the petitioner herein and in view of the changed circumstances
consider the claim of the petitioner herein for appointment on
compassionate grounds.
***
For Petitioner : Mr. M.Ravi
For Respondents : Mr. U.Baranidharan
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Mandamus directing
the respondents to regularise the service of the husband of the petitioner,
R.Ramamoorthy, who died while in service on 11.10.2014 suffering from
Diabetic, Blood Pressure and Paralysis at Government Hospital at Salem
and consequently to declare that he had completed his probation and grant
consequential benefits of annual increments and revision of pay and other
benefits to the petitioner herein.
2. The husband of the petitioner R.Ramamoorthy had been
appointed as Junior Assistant in the District Treasuries Office at Erode. His
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.11849 of 2019
father was serving as Office Assistant at Sub Treasury Office at Salem and
died while in service. Thereafter, the husband of the petitioner was
appointed as Junior Assistant on compassionate grounds on 09.10.1998.
Even before his probation could be declared on 05.01.2002, he was
terminated from service.
3. The respondents had raised issues with respect to the
educational certificates submitted by the husband of the petitioner herein.
He filed O.A.No. 175 of 2022 before the Tamilnadu Administrative
Tribunal. It was transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No. 11834
of 2007. A learned Single Judge of this Court had set aside the order of
termination of service and had held as follows:-
“7. It is therefore clear that the impugned order
was passed without giving an opportunity to the
petitioner and without holding enquiry. The
service of the petitioner should not have been
terminated in this fashion, when the termination
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.11849 of 2019
of service would take away his right to livelihood.
The impugned order is violative of Article 14 and
21 of the Constitution, as it infringes the right to
livelihood of the petitioner and his family.
Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be
quashed.
8.Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed
and the respondents are at liberty to proceed with
the mater and to decide the matter after providing
reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. No
costs.”
4. But however, the respondents pursued with the issues relating
to the certificates produced by the petitioner and had given a complaint
before the Crime Branch at Erode and consequent to their investigation, a
final report had been filed which was taken cognizance as C.C.No. 431 of
2002 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Erode. The husband of the
petitioner was convicted by Judgment dated 20.04.2007. An appeal was
filed in C.A.No. 101 of 2007, before the Additional District Judge / Fast
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.11849 of 2019
Track Court -I at Erode, who by a Judgment dated 17.09.2007 confirmed
the conviction of the husband of the petitioner herein.
5. As against that the order of the Additional District Judge / Fast
Track Court, the husband of the petitioner filed Crl.R.C.No. 1840 of 2007
by a Judgment dated 25.07.2011. A learned Single Judge of this Court had
set aside the conviction and sentence imposed and had acquitted the
husband of the petitioner of all charges.
6. Thereafter, the husband of the petitioner was permitted to join
back as Junior Assistant by an order dated 12.03.2012. He also joined on
14.03.2012. He thereafter died while in service on 11.12.2014.
7. After about a year, on 27.04.2015, formal proceedings were
issued by the third respondent / the District Treasury Officer, Erode,
dropping the charges against the husband of the petitioner consequent to his
death and declaring as abated.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.11849 of 2019
8. The petitioner had also given a representation seeking payment
of family pension and other benefits and there being no response, has filed
the present Writ Petition originally in the nature of a Mandamus seeking
payment of such monetary benefits, and later on perusal of the counter
affidavit wherein it was stated that the husband of the petitioner had not
been regularised, seeking regularisation of the service of her husband and
payment of terminal benefits.
9. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it had been
stated that after the directions of this Court, the husband of the petitioner
was reinstated into Government service on 14.03.2012 by a letter of the
Commissoinerate of Treasuries and Accounts, Chennai, in R.C.No. 41180 /
C4/2009 dated 15.02.2012. Salary was also paid to him from 14.03.2012 till
25.09.2012. He went on leave from 26.09.2012 and unfortunately died on
11.10.2014.
10. It had been stated that his service had not been regularised and
therefore, no deduction was effected for recovery of special provident fund
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.11849 of 2019
and towards General Provident Fund. It had been stated that duty salary for
the period for which her husband worked had already been claimed and paid
then and there. It had been stated that no amount is due to be paid to the
petitioner herein.
11. Heard arguments advanced by Mr. M.Ravi, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Additional Government
Pleader appearing for the respondents.
12. By way of amendment, the relief of regularisation of the
service of the husband of the petitioner, who was originally appointed as
Junior Assistant on compassionate grounds in District Treasuries Officer at
Erode, was also sought. Much earlier, his father was working as Office
Assistant in District Treasury Officer at Salem and died while in service.
Subsequently, her husband was appointed on compassionate grounds as
Junior Assistant. When he was so appointed as Junior Assistant, the only
issue was with respect to the declaration of probation. The Probation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.11849 of 2019
should have been declared within a period of two years. The period could
be extended for a period of one year but if it is not so declared, then it is
deemed to have been declared. Probation had however not been declared
since on verification of the certificates submitted by him, the respondents
entertained a doubt about their veracity and had also thought it necessary to
lodge a complaint before the Crime Branch at Erode. On investigation, a
final report was filed which was taken cognizance as C.C.No. 431 of 2002
by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Erode. On conclusion of trial, by
Judgment dated 20.04.2007, an order of conviction was passed. An appeal
was filed in C.A.No. 101 of 2007 by the husband of the petitioner herein
before the Additional District Judge / Fast Track Court-I at Erode and by a
Judgment dated 17.09.2007, the conviction was confirmed. Thereafter, he
filed Crl.R.C.No. 1840 of 2007 which came up for consideration before a
learned Single Judge of this Court. By order dated 25.07.2011, the
conviction was set aside and he was acquitted of all charges. In effect, it
has to be held that no stigma could be laid on the allegation of protection of
certificates.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.11849 of 2019
13. The respondents had also dismissed him from service by order
dated 05.01.2002. This was challenged in O.A.No. 175 of 2002 before
Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal. On transfer to this Court, it was
renumbered as W.P.No. 11837 of 2007 and a learned Single Judge of this
Court had set aside the said termination.
14. A combined reading of the order in the Writ Petition and
Criminal Revision would show that the husband of the petitioner must be
deemed to have been in continuous employment from the date of his initial
appointment on 09.10.1998. Even in the counter affidavit, the word used
when he was subsequently permitted to join office was 'reinstatement'. It
was not a fresh appointment. This reinstatement was by the
Commissionerate of Treasuries and Accounts, Chennai, in communication
in R.C.No. 41180 / C4/ 2009 dated 15.02.2012. Once he had been reinstated
into service then he would be entitled to all benefits which would accrued to
him had he been in continuous service. His service has been frustrated only
owing to a doubt raised by the respondents about the veracity of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.11849 of 2019
certificates and finally that doubt had been erased by the passing of order in
the aforementioned Criminal Revision by a learned Single Judge of this
Court. The attempts of the respondents to terminate his service did pass the
scrutiny of another learned Single Judge, who in the Writ Petition had
directed reinstatement.
15. Therefore the husband of the petitioner had been cleared all
charges that he had produced certificates doubtful in nature while joining as
Junior Assistant. It only follows that his service should have been
regularised. I hold that it should be considered as regular service and only
probation should have been declared since he had been appointed on
compassionate grounds. The respondents may therefore issue necessary
proceedings on the terminal benefits to be paid to the petitioner herein
recognising her as widow of their own employee R.Ramamoorthy.
Necessary proceedings in this regard may be issued within a period of 12
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.11849 of 2019
16. In the relief sought, interest was also sought on the DCRG
amount. But if the respondents issue proceedings within a period of 12
weeks as stated, then interest would not be payable, but if there is delay,
then interest at 12% p.a, would follow on the DCRG amount which is
payable to the petitioner.
17. The petitioner had also given an application seeking
compassionate employment. If the petitioner is otherwise eligible, the
respondents may take a considered decision depending on facts and
circumstances. The discretion is entirely vested with the respondents to
take any decision.
18. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No order as
to costs.
vsg 15.09.2023
Index:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.11849 of 2019
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
vsg
To
1. The director of Treasuries
Directorate of Treasuries and Accounts
Chennai - 600 005.
2. The Joint Director of Treasuries
(Administration)
Directorate of Treasuries and Accounts
Chennai - 600 005.
3. The District Treasury Officer,
Erode.
WP No.11849 of 2019
15.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
