AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The Petitioner prays for issuance of Writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 03.11.1995. The translated copy of the impugned order reads as under:
Through Special Messenger
Revenue Department Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
Govt.letter No. (1D) 574,dt.03.11.1995.
From:
Thiru.S.Meikanda Devan, I.A.S. SecretarytoGovernment.
To:
The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chennai-5.(withEnclosure)
Sir,
Sub: Public Services - Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service - Dindigul Anna District-
Thiru. K. Sakthimani, Assistant - 1984 List- Inclusion in the list issued.
Assistant Requestrejected-Orders
Ref: Thiru. K. Sakthimani, Assistant Petition dt.14.12.1994
Your letter No. L3/112928/94. dt.18.04.95
Your attention is invited to the petition and letter in the reference cited.
The Govt. have carefully considered the petition of Thiru. K. Sakthimani, Assistant of Dindigul Anna District, requesting to include his name in the Assistant list 1984. The petition requesting to include his name in Assistant list for 1984 is dismissed, as he did not file appeal petition within the time limit allowed.
The following records are returned
herewith.
a. Collector,Madurai,K.Dis.4021/95.
dt.13.02.95.
b.Collector,Dindigul Anna District, Roc. No. 43846/94A2 (pages 1-56).
file
c. Your office Roc.L3/112928/94 (pages1-63)
d. Service Register (Bound Vol.) of Thiru K. Sakthimani.
I request you to send acknowledgment of the records.
Yours faithfully Sdxxx for SecretarytoGovernment
Copy to:
Collector,Madurai District.
Collector,Dindigul Anna District,Dindigul.
Thiru.K. Sakthimani,Assistant -ThroughDistrict CollectorDindigul Anna District.(Para 1 & 2 only).
Personal & AdministrativeReformsDept.,Chennai.
The admitted facts of the case are; that:
The Petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground as Junior Assistant on 20.05.1980. The services of the Petitioner were regularised with effect from 01.04.1982. The Government issued instruction dated 28.06.1989, clarifying that the person appointed on compassionate ground are required to be regularised from the date of initial appointment.
In pursuance to the instruction of the Government, an order was passed on 19.10.1992, regularising the services of the Petitioner with effect from the date of initial appointment i.e., on 20.05.1980.
In view of the correction of the date of regularisation, the Petitioner filed a representation for consequential benefits of fixation of seniority and promotion.
The representation was made on 04.02.1994 which stands rejected vide impugned order dated 03.11.1995, only on the ground that the Petitioner has not filed an appeal within the time limit.
The Petitioner challenged the order before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The application filed by the Petitioner, on abolition of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, was transferred to this Court and numbered as W.P.(MD) No. 1110 of 2008 (T).
The impugned order on the face of it, cannot be sustained as the Petitioner did not file a statutory appeal, any order, which could be treated to be barred by limitation. The Petitioner only requested for grant of consequential benefits in pursuance to the regularisation of services of the Petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.1980.
No. limitation is prescribed for making representation for grant of consequential benefits arising out of an order. The authority can reject the representation, on account of inordinate delay in a given case. There was No. inordinate delay which could be a ground for the authority to reject the representation for grant of consequential benefits. It was on account of the lapse on the part of the Respondents that the Petitioner was not given the correct date of regularisation.
It is well settled that nobody can take benefit of his own wrongs. The Respondents had taken number of years to address the grievance of the Petitioner; therefore representation made by him, for grant of consequential benefits could not be said to be barred by limitation or belated.
The impugned order, therefore, on the face of it is arbitrary and outcome of non application of mind, thus amounts to colourable exercise of power, thus cannot be sustained in law.
Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside, and the case is remitted back to the competent authority to consider the representation on merits, in accordance with law.
The Respondents are directed to pass a detailed speaking order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner.
The needful be done within two months of the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No. costs.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.