AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The Petitioner served as a Cook in the Noon Meal Scheme in the second Respondent Panchayat Union for 17
years. According to the Petitioner, in January 2000, the second Respondent forced her to resign the job in order to bring in a person of his choice.
But the Petitioner declined to do the same. Later, the impugned order dated 18.07.2000 was passed by the second Respondent, stating that the
date of birth of her daughter is 08.07.1956 and her daughter''s age was 44 years and hence, the age of the Petitioner should have been 62 years as
on 30.06.2000. Stating so, the second Respondent terminated the service of the Petitioner by the impugned order dated 18.07.2000 and it is
stated therein that the Petitioner rendered more than 4 years of service as she was 62 years as on 30.06.2000. The Petitioner was relieved from
service i.e. 30.06.2000.
Therefore, the Petitioner filed an Original Application in O.A. No. 4205 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal to quash the
aforesaid order dated 18.07.2000 of the second Respondent. While ordering notice of motion on 05.07.2001, the Tribunal granted stay. Though
the said order was not complied with initially when a contempt petition was filed, the same was complied with and the Petitioner was permitted to
continue as Noon Meal Organiser. Thereafter, she retired from service on 30.06.2002. On abolition of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal,
the matter was transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P. No. 49425 of 2006.
No counter affidavit is filed by the Respondent refuting the allegations.
Basis of the impugned order is that the age of the Petitioner''s daughter was 44 years in the year 2000, as the date of birth of the Petitioner''s
daughter is 08.07.1956. Therefore, it was presumed that the Petitioner should have been 62 years as on 30.06.2000, i.e. according to the second
Respondent, the Petitioner should have given birth to her daughter at the age of 18 years. Admittedly, before passing the impugned order, no
notice was issued and the Petitioner was not heard. The age of the Petitioner''s daughter was taken based on the date of birth of her daughter as
08.07.1956 and it was not established. Even assuming that the date of birth of the Petitioner''s daughter is 08.07.1956, it is not known as to how
the second Respondent came to the conclusion that the Petitioner should have given birth to her daughter at the age of 18 years. Hence, the order
of the second Respondent is based on surmises and conjectures. Furthermore, as stated above, the impugned order was passed without hearing
the Petitioner and the same has resulted in civil consequences, affecting her livelihood. Therefore, the impugned order is arbitrary and violative of
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner was allowed to continue in service upto 30.06.2002, based on interim order.
In these circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed. It is stated that the Petitioner is
not paid salary though she worked in the second Respondent Panchayat. In view of the fact that the impugned order is quashed, the Respondents
are directed to pay salary upto 30.06.2002 i.e. the date of retirement, along with the terminal benefits, if any payable to the Petitioner. The
Respondents are directed to pay the monetary benefits arising out of this order, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
With the above observation, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.