High CourtsSingle Bench(2009) 10 MAD CK 0076

S. Thainese vs The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University and The Dean, Madras Veterinary College

Madras High Court · Decided on 22 October 2009

HON’BLE JUDGES
R. Sudhakar, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 6439 of 2006

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

64 paragraphs · 1,205 words

R. Sudhakar, J.—The Writ Petition is filed to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for records of the second respondent dated

1.12.2003 passed in Proc. No. 11020/Estt/B.2/2003 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the services of the

petitioner retrospectively with effect from his initial date of appointment on 23.6.1969 and consequently promote him to the post of Technician on

par with his immediate junior with full monetary benefits, arrears of pay and other consequential service benefits.

2.

The second respondent passed the impugned order dated 1.12.2003 which reads as follows:

Thiru S. Thainese, Attender, Dean''s office, Madras Veterinary College is requested to furnish undertaking to the effect that he cannot claim any

service benefits for the purpose of retrospective promotion, etc. in TNUVAS., so as to send the proposal for retrospective regularization to the

Special Officer, Directorate of Animal Husbandry, Chennai.

3.

On going through the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, according to the writ petitioner, he was working as a Clerk and then as

Attendant in Madras Veterinary College Hostel from 23.6.1969. Thereafter, he was appointed as Attendant in the Directorate of Veterinary

Education and Research on 4.6.1975. In para 5 of the affidavit, petitioner states that his service was regularised with effect from 1.12.1976.

Petitioner now claims that he should be regularised from the date of joining the service in the Veterinary Education and Research Department on

4.6.1975 and not from 1.12.1976. He relies upon G.O.Ms. No. 191 Public dated 1.2.1962.

4.

A counter-affidavit has been filed by the first respondent, the Registrar of Tamil Nadu Veterinary Animal Sciences University. On going through

the counter-affidavit and the typeset of papers furnished by the respondent, it comes to light that the writ petitioner has suppressed many vital facts

and has filed the writ petition bereft of material particulars so as to get some relief based on the innocuous order passed by the second respondent

Dean. The prayer sought for in the writ petition and the order under challenge is of no relevance according to the second respondent. Second

respondent is not competent authority to pass the order.

5.

Learned Counsel for the respondent submits the following facts for consideration of the court. On 16.12.1978 G.O.Ms. No. 2000 was passed

whereby the Government decided to transfer the Veterinary Education and Research Department to be brought under the control of the Tamil

Nadu Agricultural University, in short TNAU with effect from 1.12.1976. The services of all the staff right from the Professor to Last Grade

Employees including the temporary employees were transferred to Tamil Nadu Agricultural University and the names of the petitioner finds place at

serial No. 4 in temporary employees (miscellaneous) under the head Attendants in Annexure III. Thereafter, G.O.Ms. No. 2426 dated

24.12.1980 was passed. In G.O.Ms. No. 2426, para 4 is relevant, which reads as follows:

4.

The temporary employees (General) and the temporary employees (Miscellaneous) and all the other temporary persons, working in the Sheep

Breeding Research Stations at Sandynallah and Mecheri referred to in Annexure III to the G.O. second read above shall be treated as having been

appointed in the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University direct on or after 1.12.1976.

Copy of the G.O.Ms. No. 2426 has been marked to all the competent authorities including the Pay and Accounts Officer. The Registrar, TNAU,

based on the above said G.O., passed a proceedings on 23.2.1982, where it has been clearly stated that the petitioner is taken to be in the service

of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University on and after 1.12.1976 and his service is regularised from such date. It is also stated that his original date

of joining service is 4.6.1975. In the said proceedings, the following portion is relevant for the present case:

The following individuals have satisfied the adhoc qualification for appointment to L.G.G.S. Cadre and hence their services have been regularised

with effect from 1.12.76 and placed on probation for a period of one year within a continuous period of two years on duty.

*1. Thiru S. Thainese, Attendant

2.

Thiru M. Jayaraj, Attendant

3.

Thiru K. Pramasivam, Attendant

Their pay may be fixed in the revised scales with effect from 1.4.78 as per G.O.Ms. No. 2340 Agri.(AU.II) dt.10.12.80.

* Writ Petitioner

This proceeding has been communicated to all the individuals through the Dean of Madras Veterinary College, where the petitioner was working at

the relevant time.

6.

Thereafter, consequent to the regularization as stated above, the petitioner has been working in the TNAU. He has been receiving all

emoluments based on the G.O. No. 2426 and the proceedings dated 23.2.1982 referred to above. The regularization and the pay fixation is

consequent to the above said G.O. The petitioner is aware of the same. All these proceedings have not been referred to in the present affidavit.

The vital materials which are to the knowledge of the petitioner have been deliberately suppressed.

7.

Petitioner made a representation in the year 1992 after more than 10 years from the date of proceedings of the Registrar, TNAU to regularise

the service with retrospective effect and that was considered and rejected by the Secretary to Government on 26.11.1996 referring the above said

G.O.Ms. No. 2000 dated 16.12.2008 and G.O.Ms. No. 2426 dated 24.12.1980. It has been clearly stated in the said proceedings dated

26.11.1996 that no promotion with retrospective effect was given to anyone.

8.

The petitioner to overcome the lapses has innocuously made a representation to the Dean, the second respondent and obtained nebulous and

incoherent communication and based on the said internal communication dated 1.12.2003 has approached this Court for the relief of regularization

with retrospective effect from 4.6.1975.

9.

On going through the documents submitted by the respondent it is clear that the transfer of the Directorate of Veterinary Education and

Research to the control of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University and the regularization of all the employees from the Professors to the Last Grade

employees including temporary employees was ordered pursuant to the two Government Orders, namely, G.O.Ms. No. 2000 dated 16.12.1978

and G.O.Ms. No. 2426 dated 24.12.1980. The pay also has been fixed after regularization on 1.12.1976. The petitioner has been receiving

emoluments based on the said proceedings without challenge. To the knowledge of the petitioner, he was regularised with effect from 1.12.1976.

The first representation was made only after 10 years from the date of transfer of the Directorate of Veterinary Education and Research to the

Tamil Nadu Agricultural University that has already been rejected. No further steps have been taken. The present writ petition filed in the year

2004 is only based on the internal communication of the Dean which has no relevance for the purpose of adjudication for the petitioner''s claim for

regularisation with retrospective effect.

10.

Having failed to challenge the G.O.Ms. No. 2426 dated 24.12.1980 and the proceedings of the Registrar dated 23.2.1982 or the order dated

26.1.1996 referred to earlier, the present writ petition has to fail on the ground of delay and laches. Further, there is gross suppression of material

facts to the knowledge of the writ petitioner, which will disentitle him to any relief.

11.

Finding no merits, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.