Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

G.NARAPPA REDDY versus COMMISSIONER

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


G.Narappa Reddy v. Commissioner - Writ Appeal No.342 of 2005 [2007] RD-TN 887 (12 March 2007)

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

Dated: 12.03.2007

Coram

The Honourable Mr.Justice P.SATHASIVAM

and

The Honourable Mr.Justice N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

Writ Appeal No.342 of 2005

G.Narappa Reddy ..Appellant

Vs

1. The Commissioner,

Corporation of Madras,

Rippon Building,

Madras.

2. The Special Officer,

Corporation of Madras,

Rippon Building,

Madras. ..Respondents Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 16.12.1998 made in W.P.No.12120 of 1993. For Appellant : Mr.M.A.Sadanand For Respondents : Mr.L.N.Prakasam

JUDGMENT



(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.SATHASIVAM,J.) Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 16.12.1998 made in W.P.Nos.12120 of 1993, the writ petitioner has filed the above writ appeal.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the respondents.

3. In W.P.No.12120 of 1993, the petitioner prayed to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, the Commissioner and Special Officer, Corporation of Madras, to act in compliance with the resolution of the Special Officer vide No.3078/92 dated 11.12.1992 and the order of the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras appointing the writ petitioner as Assistant Revenue Officer and posting the writ petitioner in the vacancy caused due to the retirement of K.Pichayyan. The writ petitioner has also filed W.P.No.17355 of 1993 seeking to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the third respondent viz., the Deputy Commissioner (Revenue and Finance), Corporation of Madras, dated 28.06.1993 made in D.C.(R & F) PC.No.210/93 and quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction.

4. When both the writ petitions came up for hearing, the learned single Judge, after finding that the writ petitioner attained superannuation even on 31.08.1994 and nothing survives, has dismissed the same as infructuous. Questioning the said order, the petitioner has filed the present appeal.

5. Mr.M.A.Sadanand, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has brought to our notice the proceedings of the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras in GDC No.E4/29413/92 dated 16.12.1992, whereby, pursuant to the resolution of the Special Officer in Council No.3078/92 dated 11.12.1992, the petitioner was promoted and appointed as Assistant Revenue officer in the scale of pay of Rs.2200-75-2800-100-4000 plus usual allowances admissible. No doubt, the said order makes it clear that the petitioner has to pass the language test in Tamil conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission within a period of probation from the date of his appointment and subject to confirmation by the Government. Since the respondents failed to comply with the proceedings of the Commissioner, the petitioner has made a representation to the Government on 14.07.2004 highlighting his grievance, followed by another representation dated 03.09.2004. It is not in dispute that based on the resolution of the Special Officer in Council, the Commissioner of Corporation, in his proceedings dated 16.12.1992, promoted the petitioner as Assistant Revenue Officer. Now it is brought to our notice that the petitioner retired, after attaining superannuation, on 31.08.1994. In such circumstances, in view of the proceedings of the Commissioner mentioned above, we are of the view that the petitioner would be entitled to all monetary benefits up to the date of his retirement in terms of the scale of pay provided for the Assistant Revenue Officer. We are satisfied that the dismissal of the writ petition No.12120 of 1993 as infructuous, cannot be sustained.

6. It is also brought to our notice that in W.P.No.20450 of 2003, the learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 26.04.2006, permitted the petitioner to submit a detailed statement of amounts due to him to the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, within a period of one week from the date of the order and on such statement being made, the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, was directed to consider the same on merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It is represented that since the said order has not been complied with, the petitioner has filed the contempt petition.

7. It is also brought to our notice that on the basis of the representation dated 14.07.2004 (submitted to the Government on 08.12.2004), the Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Chennai-9, by letter No.43848/MC.III/2004-1 dated 25.01.2005, directed the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai to take action in the light of the clarification issued in the Government letter No.23135/MC.III/2000-18 dated 05.07.2002 and to settle the residuary terminal benefits payable to him immediately. The learned counsel has also placed the order of the learned single Judge dated 26.04.2006 as well as the letter of the Government dated 25.01.2005 for our perusal.

8. Considering all the above mentioned details and of the fact that the writ petitioner attained the age of superannuation as early as on 31.08.1994 and in the absence of any disciplinary proceeding pending against him, it is but proper on the part of the respondents to implement the resolution of the Special Officer in Council vide 3078/92 dated 11.12.1992 and the order of the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras dated 16.12.1992, by calculating the monetary benefits by notionally promoting him as Assistant Revenue Officer in the scale of pay of Rs.2200-75-2800-100-4000 plus usual allowances and settle all monetary benefits including the amounts as directed by this Court in W.P.No.20450 of 2003 dated 26.04.2006 as well as the letter of the Government in letter No.43848/MC.III/2004-1 dated 25.01.2005, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

9. The writ appeal is allowed on the above terms. No costs. It is clarified that any amount already paid towards the retirement benefits to the petitioner to be deducted while settling the monetary benefits to him. It is also clarified that the pension benefits are to be calculated as directed above and on the basis of the proceedings of the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras, dated 16.12.1992. raa

To

1. The Commissioner,

Corporation of Madras,

Rippon Building,

Madras.

2. The Special Officer,

Corporation of Madras,

Rippon Building,

Madras.

[PRV/9868]


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.