w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

L. Chinnathambi v/s Secretary to Government, Department of Public Healthcare & Family Welfare, Chennai & Others

    W.P. No. 8481 of 2020 & W.M.P. No. 10230 of 2020
    Decided On, 08 July 2020
    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras
    For the Petitioner: C. Umashankar, Advocate. For the Respondent: J. Ramesh, Additional Government Pleader.

Judgment Text
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records pertaining to the issuance of Order Na.Ka. No.1843/E4/2013, dated 13.3.2020 (served on 25.3.2020) by the 3rd Respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents herein to reappoint the Petitioner in the permanent post of Mazdoor (Field Worker) in Dharmapuri District with all benefits.)

1. (The matter is taken up through web hearing).

2. The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the Order of the Third Respondent, dated 13.3.2020 terminating the Petitioner from service. Brief facts are necessary necessitating the grant of extraordinary Interim Order and also proposing to take action against the Third Respondent for his contemptuous conduct.

3. The Petitioner has originally approached this Court by filing W.P. No.6635 of 2012 for regularization of his service as Mazdoor, since despite his continuous employment on a temporary basis, he was not regularized. When a Representation was made, the same was rejected on 13.6.2011. Challenging the same, the above said Writ Petition was filed.

4. This Hon'ble Court after consideration of rival submissions, had passed a detailed Order on 20.3.2018 directing the Respondents as under:

€œ20. In the light of the above findings, this Court directs the Respondents/ Contempt Authorities to consider the claim of the Petitioner for permanent absorption in any one of the existing vacancies on the basis of his continuous employment from 2006 till 2016 and pass orders accordingly, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. The Authority shall take into consideration the above observations of this Court as well as the exception carved out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Umadevi as found in Paragraph No.53 of the Judgment as well as the other Supreme Court Judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.€

5. The Third Respondent, who appears to be the Competent Authority, in implementing the direction of this Court has passed an order on 11.6.2018 rejecting the claim of the Petitioner once again stating that the claim of the Petitioner could not be acceded to in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and also referred to a Division Bench Judgment of this Court. The Rejection Order prima facie appears to be a wanton slight on the specific direction issued by this Court in the above Paragraph.

6. A Contempt Petition was filed in C.P. No.1652 of 2018 and Notice was ordered. The Contempt was filed for wilful disobedience of the official concerned in implementing the directions of this Court. After Notice was ordered, finally an Order was passed on 22.2.2019 by the Third Respondent, appointing the Petitioner as Field Worker on a regular time scale. However, it is mentioned in the Order that the Petitioner's appointment was subject to the result of the Writ Appeal pending against the direction of this Court. On the basis of the subsequent development, the Contempt Petition was closed on 22.3.2019.

7. After closure of the Contempt Petition, it appears that the Writ Appeal, which was filed with a delay of 372 days came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Davison Bench and the Hon'ble Division Bench, by its Order dated 24.9.2019, dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Petition for condonation of delay and the Writ Appeal was also rejected at the SR stage. The Hon'ble Division Bench was incorrectly informed that the Authorities had infact rejected the claim of the Petitioner and the rejection was in compliance of the Order passed by this Court in the Writ Petition, without disclosing the subsequent development being the Order passed by the Third Respondent dated 22.2.2019 granting regular appointment to the Petitioner.

8. The case then took an ugly turn when the Third Respondent, on the basis of the rejection of the Writ Appeal filed by the department has now passed the Order of Termination of the Petitioner from service as if the Writ Appeal was filed by the Petitioner. Obviously, the Third Respondent who passed the Order has not understood under what circumstances, the order in Writ Appeal came to be passed on 24.9.2019.

9. Be that as it may. The Third Respondent, who is aware of the Regular Appointment Order issued to the Petitioner on 22.2.2019, cannot suo motu undo the order by terminating the service of the Petitioner when a Division Bench of this Court has not dealt with the Appeal on merits.

10. From the facts as shortly narrated above, it appears that the Order passed by the Third Respondent is either an outcome of blissful ignorance or out of deliberate disregard to this Court's Order and also Order passed earlier by the Office of the Third Respondent itself. In the opinion of this Court, both ways there is a brazen contemptuous conduct on the part of the Third Respondent and it only reflects the scant regard of the administrative responsibility vest in him. Even if it is done without understanding the implication of his action, it only again reflects on his poor cognitive function of the Third Respondent.

11. Therefore, this Court is prima facie of the view that the Third Respondent appears to have exhibited spiteful conduct in passing the impugned Order in the light of the above factual narrative.

12. In the above circumstances, this Court is constrained to stay the impugned Order of Termination, dated 13.3.2020 of the Third Respondent, as the order, in the prima facie opinion of this Court, is a nullity. Accordingly, the impugned Order of Termination, dated 13.3.2013 is stayed, with a direction to restore the employment of the Petitioner, forthwith.

13. In view of the contemptuous conduct, the Third Respondent, viz., the Deputy Director of Health Service, Dharmapuri District, is directed to appear before this Court through Video Conference on 15.7.2020, without fail. This Court is constrained to pass this Order, despite the Covid-19 situation, as the crass conduct of the Third Respondent is too serious and deprecatory, displaying officious supercilious disposition to be ignored by this Court and deferred. The Third Respondent is directed to explain in writing as to on wha

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
t basis the impugned Order was passed by him. 14. A copy of the Order is directed to be furnished to Mr. J. Ramesh, Additional Government Pleader who is inturn is directed to inform the Third Respondent of this Order marking a copy to him, forthwith. Mr. P.S. Siva Sanmugasundaram, the learned Special Government Pleader, who appeared before Division Bench is also directed to explain as to why correct facts were not placed before the Division Bench when he appeared for the Appellants/Department, when the learned Division Bench passed the Order on 24.9.2019. 15. The Registry is directed to serve a copy of this Order to Mr. P.S. Siva Sanmugasundaram, the learned Special Government Pleader.