Judgment · High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 13.03.2009CORAM:THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRUW.P.Nos.30606 to 30609 of 2006M.Murthy.. Petitioner in W.P.No.30606 of 2006R.Raju .. Petitioner in W.P.No.30607 of 2006S.Rajagopal .. Petitioner in W.P.No.30608 of 2006P.Murugesan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.30609 of 2006Vs.

State rep. by Secretary to GovernmentMunicipal Administration and WaterSupply Department, Chennai 9.

Director of Municipal AdministrationChennai 5.

CommissionerAranthangi Municipality, Pudukkottai District. .. Respondents in all the W.Ps.Prayer :Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for a Writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioners as driver on time scale of pay of Rs.975-1660 in one of the four posts sanctioned for Aranthangi Municipality in proceedings Roc. No.74713/96/J3 dated 29.5.1997 of the Director of Municipal Administration, Chennai. For Petitioners :: Mr. S.Ilamvaludhi For Respondents :: Mr.P.Gurunathan, G.A.

O R D E RThe four petitioners filed O.A.Nos. 5757 to 5760 of 1997. Onabolition of the Tamil nadu Administrative Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as W.P.Nos.30606 to30609 of 2006. 2. The grievance of the petitioners was that they were workingas N.M.R. Drivers in the third respondent Aranthangi Municipality and four posts of regular Drivers have been sanctioned by proceedings dated 29.5.1997 issued by the Director of Municipal Administration. In view of those sanctioned posts, they should be absorbed against the said posts. 3. Under section 74 of the District Municipalities Act 1920,the power to frame service regulations in respect of the Municipal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ staff vests with the Municipal Council. Under section 75 of the Act, the power to pay those staff vests only with the Municipal Council. Even appointing authority to make an appointment is the MunicipalCouncil.

It is not clear as to how the petitioners could have approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with the grievance which they have projected in the Original Applications, when the Tribunal has no power in the absence of any notification with reference to the dealing with the employees working in the Municipalities. Under section 15(3) of the Administrative TribunalsAct 1985, unless there is a specific notification covering any Localor other Authority or Corporation, the Tribunal does not get any automatic jurisdiction over the municipal employees. Under section 77of the District Municipalities Act 1920 by amendment made by TamilNadu Act 65 of 1986 with effect from 1.6.1986, it is only the Teachers, other officers and servants of the Municipal Councilemployees in connection with the Municipal Schools will become the whole time employees of the State Government and therefore, it is in their cases, the Tribunal might have jurisdiction but not in the case of others. Further there is no automatic right for a N.M.R. employee to be considered in the absence of enabling provision under the Rulesframed by the respective Municipal Council.

Since these matters have been transferred to this Court and even if the Original Applications are treated as Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, there is ajurisdiction vested on this Court to deal with the subject matter raised in the writ petitions. The fundamental question whether employee employed as a N.M.R. has as a matter of right to get aregular post of Driver, is highly doubtful. In the absence of any enforceable right on the part of the petitioners, the writ petitions are misconceived and accordingly all the four Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.rpaTo1.The Secretary to GovernmentMunicipal Administration and WaterSupply Department, Chennai 9.2.Director of Municipal Administration, Chennai 5.3.CommissionerAranthangi Municipality, Pudukkottai District.W.P.Nos.30606 to 30609 of 2006TEJ(CO)EM/18.3.09