E.P. Perumal... v. State of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 27..02..2008Coram:The Honourable Mr.Justice P.K. MISRAandThe Honourable Mr.Justice K.CHANDRUW. P. No. 230 of 2004E.P. Perumal... Petitionervs.1.State of Tamil NaduRep. by Secretary to GovernmentHigher Education DepartmentSecretariatChennai – 92.The Director of Collegiate EducationChennai – 63.PrincipalGovernment Arts CollegeDharmapuri – 636 705.4.RegistrarTamil Nadu Administrative TribunalChennai – 104 ... RespondentsPetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying toissue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the recordspertaining to the order dated 29.12.2003 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No. 3877 of 2003 confirming the order passed by the second respondent inhis proceedings Na.Ka. No. 37213/D5/2003 dated 18.11.2003 and quash thesame and direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to be in serviceon re-employment basis till the end of the academic year 31.5.2004 andconfer all the consequential benefits.For Petitioner : Mr. T. SellapandianFor Respondents 1-3: Mr. S. Rajasekar, AGP https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ORDER(Order of the Court was made by K. CHANDRU, J.)Heard the arguments of Mr. T. Sellapandian, learned counselappearing for the petitioner and Mr. S. Rajasekar, learned AdditionalGovernment Pleader representing the respondents 1 to 3 and have perusedthe records.2.This writ petition is filed against the order of the TramilNadu Administrative Tribunal [for short, 'Tribunal'] dated 29.12.2003 indeclining to grant re-employment benefits to the petitioner from01.10.2003 to 31.5.2004. 3.The petitioner was working as a Selection Grade Lecturer inthe Government Arts College, Dharmapuri and he had reached the age ofsuperannuation on 30.9.2003. Since the Government had ordered that theservices of teachers who retired during the middle of the academic yearwill be continued till the end of the academic year, proposals were sentby the Principal of the Government Arts College recommending the case ofthe petitioner for permitting to re-employ him from 01.10.2003 to31.5.2004. 4.Since no order was passed, the petitioner moved the Tribunalin O.A. No. 3296 of 2003 and sought for his continuance on re-employmentterms. The Tribunal allowed the O.A., by an order dated 05.11.2003and stated that the refusal to re-employ the petitioner can only be onthree grounds, viz., that the person seeking re-employment should havegood physical health, his conduct and character should be satisfactoryand that his pension papers should not have been submitted to theAccountant General six months in advance to the date of retirement. 5.As liberty was granted to the respondents to pass orders interms of the proposal sent on behalf of the petitioner, the secondrespondent, by an order dated 18.11.2003, rejected the request made onbehalf of the petitioner informing that since he had participated inthe illegal strike called by JACTEO-JEO and as he had violated Rule 22of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, was dismissed fromservice and, therefore, ineligible to get the re-employment. It wasonly pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court, he was reinstated inservice on certain conditions, and, therefore, the respondent statedthat the question of permitting his continuance after the age ofsuperannuation on re-employment basis, was not feasible. In thatview of the matter, he was relieved from his service on 30.9.2003. Thepetitioner once again had approached the Tribunal with O.A. No. 3877 of2003 challenging the said order. 6.A reply statement dated Nil December 2003 was filed and it wasstated that the petitioner had violated the Conduct Rules and he also https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ defied the Tamil Nadu Essential Services Maintenance Act, 2002 [forshort, 'TESMA']. The Tribunal agreed with the contention made in thereply statement and stated that the conduct of the petitioner was notsatisfactory and dismissed the O.A. The petitioner, thereafter,moved this Court with the present writ petition.7.Though the writ petition was admitted, the interim reliefprayed for by him was refused vide order dated 21.3.2005. The shortquestion that arises for consideration is whether the reason given bythe second respondent in the impugned order is justified and whether theTribunal was wrong in not interfering with the said order.8.When the service of 2,00,000 employees were dispensed with,without any enquiry, on the ground that the Government employeesincluding the petitioner had gone on a strike and when challenge wasmade against the said action, this Court did not interfere on the groundthat there was an availability of alternative remedy. When the matterwas taken to the Supreme Court, the issue was dealt with on merits. Byvarious interim orders, the Supreme Court directed the State Governmentto reinstate the substantial number of Government employees. The finaljudgment of the Supreme Court was reported in 2003 (6) SCC 581 [T.K.Rangarajan and others v. Government of Tamil Nadu and others]. 9.Though the Supreme Court took exception to the Governmentservants going on strike in violation of the Conduct Rules, it wasfinally decided that the Government servants will be reinstated and thefollowing undertaking given by the learned Senior Counsel for the TamilNadu State was recorded by the Supreme Court in its order dated06.8.2003 (cited supra)."From 25th July such employees would be reinstated inservice subject to their giving an unconditional apologyfor resorting to strike and also an undertaking to theeffect that in future they would abide by Rule 22.He also states that for the employees who would bereinstated in service with regard to the period for whichthey remained absent, appropriate order would be passed bythe State Government for regularizing their absence.However, this would not be treated as a break in service."Thus, the petitioner was restored to service. Whether his conduct canbe said to be bad so as to disentitle him from getting any benefitsgiven to teachers is the question to be decided in this writ petition. 10.Subsequent to the order passed by the Supreme Court, the StateGovernment not only withdrew the TESMA but also regularised the periodof strike indulged by the Government servants and also paid full wagesfor the said period. The endorsements made in the Annual ConfidentialReports were also directed to be deleted with reference to the saidissue. An incident of going on a day's strike and the subsequent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ conduct of regretting for the same cannot vitiate the long services putin by a Government servant. Such an action on the part of theGovernment servant cannot be said to be a bad conduct or a bad characterso as to deprive the legitimate benefits conferred on them by virtue ofthe service rendered by a Government servant. 11.In the present case, the Government Order granting re-employment was done so as to help the students to have an academiccontinuity and that their education will not be disrupted. Inextending the said benefit, the respondents denying the benefit to thepetitioner on extraneous ground is totally unwarranted. It must benoted that the Government also withdrew all the disciplinary actiontaken against the Government servants vide G.O.Ms. No. 125 Personnel andAdministrative Reforms Department dated 19.5.2004.12.In the light of the same, the writ petition will stand allowedand the the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 3877 of 2003 dated29.12.2003 will stand set aside. Consequently, the order of the secondrespondent dated 18.11.2003 will also stand set aside. Since thepetitioner had already retired from service, the respondents are herebydirected to pay entire wages to the petitioner from 01.10.2003 to31.5.004 on re-employment basis. This exercise shall be completed bythe respondents within a period of eight weeks from the date of receiptof a copy of this order. However, there will be no order as to costs. Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrargriTo1.The Secretary to GovernmentState of Tamil NaduHigher Education DepartmentSecretariatChennai – 92.The Director of Collegiate EducationChennai – 6 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.PrincipalGovernment Arts CollegeDharmapuri – 636 705.+1 cc to Mr.S.Mani, Advocate, SR.No.10664.1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.10772.Ms (Co)krd / 29.4 W. P. No. 230 of 2004