Madras High Court Restraints TANGEDCO Employees From Going On Strike, Says Essential Services Will Be Affected Case Title: A Saravanan v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 11 The Madras High Court has temporarily restrained the employees of the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO) from going on a strike on January 10 or...
Case Title: A Saravanan v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 11
The Madras High Court has temporarily restrained the employees of the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO) from going on a strike on January 10 or on any future date.
While allowing the petition filed by one J Elumalai, the bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy held that since electricity is an essential service, if the employees went on strike, it would affect the public at large. Thus, the court restrained the employees from going on a strike.
Madras High Court Stays Order Cancelling Appointment Of 25 Aavin Employees
Case Title: D Elumalai v. The Commissioner of Milk Production and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 13
The Madras High Court has stayed an order passed by the General Manager of Aavin cancelling the appointment of 25 employees. Aavin is a state government cooperative under Tamil Nadu Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd.
While giving an interim stay on the operation of the impugned order, Justice Abdul Quddhose said the petitions are prima facie maintainable as the petitioners have approached the court only on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
The petitioners contended that the order of cancellation of their appointment was arbitrary and illegal. The reason given by the authorities for cancellation of appointment is that the appointments were made in violation of the Special Rules. The petitioners, however, submitted that they were appointed after following due procedure and proper verification.
Can't Deny Maternity Benefits On Technicalities, Woman Cannot Be Forced To Swing Between Motherhood And Employment: Madras High Court
Case Title: Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Ltd and another v. B Rajeswari
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 15
While dismissing an appeal preferred by Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation against a single judge order directing the organization to pay maternity benefits to a temporary employee, the Madras High Court recently held that welfare legislation like the Maternity Benefits Act cannot be denied merely on the basis of technicalities.
Highlighting the importance of maternity benefits for women, Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq went on to observe that a woman must not be forced to swing between motherhood and work like a pendulum and that even in Hindu mythology, women who sacrificed their lives for their families were considered at par with God.
Case Title: Eswari v. Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 31
The Madras High Court recently reiterated that a candidate who is ineligible to participate in a recruitment process is a stranger to such process and cannot challenge the appointments made therein.
Justice Abdul Quddhose thus dismissed the plea of a sanitation worker who had challenged the appointments of candidates as Junior Assistants in Coimbatore Corporation.
Case Title: Dr Sri Hari Vignesh R v. State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 44
In a plea challenging the posting of non-service PG doctors in Urban Primary Health Centre (UPHC) and Additional Primary Health Centre (APHC), the Madras High Court refused to interfere with the decision of the Directorate of Public Health and Preventive Medicine and directed the doctors to report to duty in the Centres allotted to them.
The main contention of the doctors was that the posting is not commensurate with the qualification and specialisation attained by them in the PG course. It was also argued that the health centres do not have the facilities to enable them perform their area of specialisation.
Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that the 19 doctors, who were before the court, had opted for UPHC and APHC at the time of counselling and cannot be allowed to wriggle out by stating that they do not have the necessary facilities in those PHCs.
Case Title: Dr. Jayakrishnan MP v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 45
In a relief to five doctors, the Madras High Court has held that the period of service rendered by them during Covid-19 can be adjusted towards the two years of compulsory bond service.
Justice CV Karthikeyan held that the Government should extend an arm to the doctors as there was no refusal to undergo the compulsory bond period but only a request to adjust the period already served during Covid-19.
Once Teacher Is Appointed To Sanctioned Post In Aided School, Govt Cannot Refuse Approval Citing Fall In Student Strength: Madras High Court
Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu and others v. The Correspondent
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 68
While dismissing an appeal filed by the State of Tamil Nadu, the Madras High Court recently observed that once a teacher is appointed to a sanctioned post in an aided school, the Government cannot refuse its approval.
Justice R Subramanian and Justice K Govindarajan Thilakavadi further noted that while deciding the number of teachers to be appointed, what has to be looked into is the number of sections and groups in the school and not the number of students.
Case Title: Kudankulam Nuclear Power Employees Union v. Government of India and ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw Mad 118
Dealing with Kudankulam Nuclear Power Employees Union petition's seeking benefit of wages for the work done on a holiday, the Madras High Court remarked that public servants are like school children who always welcome holidays and exemption from work. The court was hearing a plea claiming double wages for working on a declared holiday (Ambedkar Jayanti).
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench said that though Dr. Ambedkar was someone who would have wanted people to work hard instead of declaring holiday on his anniversary, and that a system of sentiments and symbolism is prevalent.
Case Title: K Singaravelu v The Government of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 147
While refusing relief to a schoolteacher challenging his transfer, the Madras High Court recently observed that a teacher should focus on imparting knowledge and skills to the needy students and not hold on to comfortable posting.
Justice CV Karthikeyan further opined that the school teacher should set an example for the students and not question every administrative order.
Case Title: The Director of School Education and Others v. M Velayutham and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 160
The Madras High Court recently held that any teachers who have been appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher or a Graduate Teacher/BT Assistant prior to July 29, 2011, are eligible to continue in service even if they have not qualified Teacher's Eligibility Test but they must possess the TET to be eligible for consideration to future promotional prospects.
The court struck down a Government Order issued by the School Education Department prescribing that a pass in TET was mandatory only for direct recruitment to the post of BT Assistant and not for promotion. The court said that TET is mandatory for all teachers appointed after July 29, 2011, whether by direct recruitment or by promotion.
Case Title: S Raja v M/s.Hindustan Unilever Ltd and another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 161
The Madras High Court recently observed that use of abusive language is not of such a serious nature so as to impose the "capital punishment" of dismissal from service.
The bench of Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice R Kalaimathi interfered with an order of single judge who had set aside the labour court order for reinstating the workman with backwages. The court noted that while awarding punishment, the management has to take into account the gravity of the offence and the previous record of the workman along with other circumstances
Case Title: MA Ranjith v The Director General of Police
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 179
While providing relief to a Police Inspector with respect to his pending salary, the Madras High Court criticized the Director General of Police for not considering the representation made by him in 2019.
Justice Battu Devanand also said that the action of the DGP is not only illegal but also in violation of the Inspector's right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
“This is one of the classic cases of lethargic attitude of the bureaucrats in our country. Every employee, who discharges his duties honestly, he would expect payment of his salary regularly from the employer, without any unreasonable delay. The employee has to survive himself and he has to feed his family and also to take care of all necessities of his family members, from the salary, he is getting,” the court said.
Case Title: A Ayyanar v The General Manager
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 183
The Madras High Court recently directed the reinstatement of a Bus Conductor, Ayyanar, who was terminated from service for non-issuance of a bus ticket to a lady passenger and for having an excess of seven rupees with him.
Justice PB Balaji said that the order of termination from service was grossly disproportionate and criticized the action of the State Transport Department of relying on earlier proceedings against Ayyanar, even though they had been settled.
Case Title: The Registrar, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and others v. D Rajasree and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 209
The Madras High Court recently held that medical colleges have an obligation to pay stipend to the postgraduate students and they cannot deny the same to them on the ground of equitable set-off, even when the amount that is sought to be claimed by them is not yet ascertained.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu were hearing an appeal preferred by Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Aarupadai Veedu Medical College & Hospital against a single judge order directing the colleges to make a payment towards the stipend in terms of Regulation 13.3 of the Medical Council of India (MCI), Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000.
The court noted that for allowing a claim of equitable set-off, both the claims must arise out of the same transaction and it would be inequitable to drive the defendant to a separate suit. In the present case, the court noted that the claims between the college and the students did not arise out of a commercial transaction.
Madras High Court Sentences IAS Officer To Two Weeks Imprisonment For Failure To Implement Court Order In Service Matter
Case Title: P Gnana Pragasam v Pradeep Yadav IAS and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 216
The Madras High Court has sentenced IAS officer Pradeep Yadav and two others to two weeks imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000 each in a contempt case for failure to implement earlier orders of the court. The court observed that the officer had failed to implement the order of the court while he was holding the post of Principal Secretary to School Education Department.
Justice Battu Devanand refused to accept the unconditional apology tendered by the officers.
Case Title; P Elangovan and others v R Prema Latha and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 220
The Madras High Court has constituted a 2-member committee to make a detailed report on the appointments of 254 candidates to the post of Assistant Professors in the institutions of the Pachaiyappa's Trust pursuant to the recruitment notifications dated 12.12.2013 and 18.02.2014.
Former Madras High Court Judge Justice B Gokuldas will be the Chairman of the committee and Dr. Freeda Gnana Rani, Ex-Principal of Quaid-e-Millath Government College for Women will be the other member of the committee.
The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq directed the committee to look into the requisite qualifications and eligibility criteria as prescribed under the recruitment notifications under which the appointments were made and to look into the qualification and other eligibility criteria of all the appointees to see if they are eligible or not.
Case Title: K Indulekha v. The Chairman, TNPSC and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 223
The Madras High Court has suggested that judicial examinations should be conducted every year to reduce the pendency of cases in the courts.
A division bench of Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice K Rajasekar was hearing petitions against the Advertisement and Notification relating to the selection process of Civil Judge issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.
The court noted that the principles governing a recruitment process with regard to determination of a cut-off are well settled and it is for the Authority to fix the cut-off date or age limit in accordance with the rules. The court, relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Rachna and others vs. Union of India and another held that unless the public policy is capricious and totally arbitrary, the Court cannot blindly stall the selection process.
Case Title: Arunkanth v Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 225
Observing that the right to protest for a common cause is a fundamental right of each and every citizen of the country, the Madras High Court directed the authorities to give an appointment order to a man whose application to the post of Grade-II Police Constable was rejected on the ground that he had participated in protests against the NEET examination during his college days.
Justice L Victoria Gowri of the Madurai bench said:
“The respondent authorities failed to consider the fact that there are no other criminal antecedents as against the petitioner and this particular crime has nothing to do with any criminal implication as far as the petitioner is concerned and he had only exercised his fundamental right to protest by participating in the protest organized by his fellow students and definitely, it will not have any implication as to the nature of the job for which he has applied to as Grade-II Police Constable,” the court said.
Case Title: A Lakshminarayanan v The Assistant General Manager
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 226
While setting aside a charge memo issued against an employee of the Tamil Nadu Grama Bank, the Madras High Court noted that every employee has a "right to vent" and the management could not take action against the employees for messages that were posted in a WhatsApp group chat expressing critical views against the management so long as such messages were otherwise within the legal bounds.
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench held that though an employee was to show courtesy to a superior officer while gossiping privately, the superior officer may come in for all kinds of criticism. The judge added that when the management cannot interfere with gossip that takes place over a cup of tea, it could also not interfere just because the same exchange took place on a virtual platform.
Case Title: S Jarin Singh v Union Of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 238
The Madras High Court recently observed that a member of the armed forces is expected to have utmost principles of discipline and is expected to follow every command of his superiors without resistance.
“Any member of armed forces is expected to uphold principles of discipline to the utmost. There can never be any resistance shown to the superior or higher officer. The command is a command and should be followed even at the cause of personal suffering,” Justice CV Karthikeyan said.
The court also emphasised that a punishment of compulsory retirement did not attach any stigma and should not prevent a person from applying from a job elsewhere.
Case Title: V Perumal v Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 246
The Madras High Court recently lamented that though the framers of the Constitution dreamt of an egalitarian society where people irrespective of their religion, caste, or sex, would be treated equally, some people even today indulge in producing false caste certificates for seeking employment and education, thus depriving opportunity to the deserving.
Justice N Mala noted that it was because of people like this, that Dr. Ambedkar's dream of achieving a casteless society was still a dream.
Justice Nisha Banu also lamented such fraudulent certificates for public administrations and said that delayed verification and complexity of the best known methods added to the challenge.
Case Title: N Mahendran v The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 248
The Madras High Court recently refused to interfere with the removal from service of a man who had obtained a compassionate appointment through suppression of facts, observing that he did not deserve any sympathy.
Justice CV Karthikeyan criticised the manner in which the man had obtained a certificate claiming that his family was indigent by suppressing material facts and went on to get employment based on the certificate.
Maternity Benefit Act Not Applicable To TN Govt Servants, No Leave For 3rd Child Even If First Two Children Born Before Joining Service: Madras HC
Case Title: Tmt M Nithya v The Head Master and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 250
In a pertinent judgment, the Madras High Court has ruled that government servants working in the State are governed by the Tamil Nadu Government Fundamental Rules and not the Maternity Benefits Act 1961. The court thus observed that such employees could not seek maternity leave for a third child as a matter of right when the State policy restricts the same.
Justice N Sathish Kumar observed as under,
“...the facts of the present case that the Petitioner is having three biological children. When the state policy and fundamental rules restrict the maternity leave for 3rd child, this Court is of the view, as the matter of right the Petitioner cannot seek maternity leave on the basis of the Maternity Benefit Act. In view of the same, the impugned order has to be sustained.”
The court, looking into the laws and rules, held that the petitioner was governed only by the Fundamental Rules since the Maternity Benefit Act was not applicable to Government servants.
Married Daughter Can't Challenge Denial Of Compassionate Appointment In Absence Of Dependency, Financial Hardship Of Bereaved Family: Madras HC
Case Title: A Chinnaponnu v Union of India and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 257
The Madras High Court has made it clear that even though married daughters are equally eligible to be considered for compassionate employment, their appointment has to be considered on touchstone of criteria like dependency, financial status of the bereaved family, etc.
Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice PB Balaji observed as under,
“Undoubtedly, the principle of gender equality and non-discrimination is of paramount importance. We accept that no contrary view can be taken in considering compassionate appointment for married daughters of the family unless they satisfy other criteria viz., dependency, financial status, etc., as laid down in the relevant Rules or Act,”
Case Title: Kalyani v The Additional Director and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 285
Coming to the aid of a mother seeking a share of the terminal and pensionary benefits of her deceased son, the Madras High court observed that the mother, being a senior citizen and one of the legal heirs was entitled to a share in the terminal and pensionary benefits.
Though the Director of Ex-Service Men Welfare submitted that the deceased had nominated his wife to receive the death-cum-retirement benefits and gratuity under Rule Rule 48 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules making the mother disentitled to claim any share, the court found the argument to be non-sustainable.
Justice Victoria Gowri of the Madurai bench thus observed,
“The submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader is not sustainable, since the mother/petitioner, being a senior citizen and one of the four legal heirs of the deceased Subramanian, she is entitled to ¼ th share in the all the terminal and pensionary benefits of her son.”
Case Title: BSF Ex-Servicemen Welfare Association v. The District Collector and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 294
The Madras High Court recently observed that it could not treat retired personnel from the Border Security Force (BSF) as Ex-Servicemen for extending the benefits of exemption and concession granted to Ex-Servicemen as per the The Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, for the benefits of purchase and consumption of liquor in the State.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu observed that as per the existing Act and Rules, the term “Ex-Servicemen” did not include personnel who retired from the para-military force and it was for the Government to make such amendments.
Case Title: The Director General of Police v D Jayakumar
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 296
The Madras High Court has recently observed that in cases where employees were suspended from service in connection with a crime, the suspension cannot continue endlessly without initiating disciplinary proceedings merely due to pendency of criminal case.
The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice K Kumaresh Babu observed that the employers could not continuously take a stand that it is not conducive to revoke the suspension of the employee while pendency of the criminal case. The court added that in every quarter of the year, the employer is to review the necessity for extending the suspension.
Case Title: The Chennai District Collector and Others v T.V.S.Jaya Perumal (Died)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 309
The Madras High Court recently came to the rescue of a family struggling to secure family pension for the past 36 years. The court also observed that the authorities' conduct in making the family run from pillar to post for the past 36 years during which time the wife of the deceased employee had also died was not merely unlawful, arbitrary but “inhuman”.
The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice C Kumarappan also directed the State to make amendments to existing laws or bring in effective mechanisms to the existing laws to see that the retirement cum death benefits are paid to the families within a period of six months.
The court thus opined that the authorities could take the present case as a model case to streamline the issues pertaining to settling family pensions and to bring in a mechanism in tune with the existing laws.
Case Title: Dr.Pradeep Vasudevan v The State of Tamil nadu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 332
The Madras High Court recently observed that the period of quarantine during the covid duty rendered by post graduate medical students will be considered to be a part of the bond period.
Justice Anita Sumanth observed that the quarantine period was nothing but an extension of the covid duty itself and thus gave relief to a student who wanted his quarantine period of 150 days during the covid duty to be included in the mandatory bond period.
Case Title: M.Kalpana v The Secretary
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 342
Coming to the aid of a candidate whose answer paper was invalidated for writing “Jai Hind” at the end of an essay, the Madras High Court recently observed that writing Jai Hind did not invalidate the essay and it was in fact a patriotic slogan which summarised the essence of the topic.
Justice Battu Devanand of the Madurai bench observed that observed that Jai Hindi which meant victory to India was a commonly uttered slogan whenever patriotic fervour was invoked to the motherland. The court also noted that since the essay was to be on the importance and conservation of natural resources, writing Jai Hind was very relevant and appropriate to the question and it could not be treated as an impertinent remark.
Madras High Court Upholds Grant Of Incentive Marks In Recruitment To Doctors For COVID Duty In Govt Hospitals
Case Title: Dr. D.Hariharan and Others v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 355
The Madras High Court recently ruled in favor of granting incentive marks for medical practitioners and PG doctors who were engaged in COVID-19 duty in Government hospitals. The court also observed that the normal rule of "not changing the rules of the game during the course of the game" required a different consideration in view of the COVID-19 scenario and could not come in the way of granting incentive marks to Medical Officers who put their life at risk.
The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing the pleas filed by applicants who had participated in the recruitment to the post of Assistant Surgeon (General). The challenge was against the GO issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu dated August 17, 2023 deciding to grant incentives to those Health Professionals who worked for COVID - 19 related duty in regular Government appointments.
Married Woman Cannot Be Presumed To Have Disowned Residential Rights At Her Parents' House: Madras High Court
Case Title: G.Mayakannan v. The District Collector
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 359
While dismissing a plea challenging the appointment of a woman to the post of Panchayat Secretary claiming that she was not a resident of that place, the Madras High Court observed that a married woman should not be presumed to have disowned the residential rights at her parents home on account of her marriage.
Justice RN Manjula stressed that retaining or waiving the residential address was completely at the will of the married woman and her family in certain circumstances. This will, along with a house was enough to provide her with a residential certificate, the court added.
Case Title: Tamil Nadu State Transport Employees' Federation v Government of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 366
The Madras High Court recently stressed on the importance of Trade unions and observed that unions were as important as a strong opposition in a democratic set up.
Justice R Hemalatha was hearing a plea by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Employees' Federation challenging the decision of the Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited to engage drivers and conductors through a man power agency to operate regular bus operations.
The court advised the authorities to adopt a more transparent and easier process to recruit drivers instead of venturing into the outsourcing mode through man power agencies. The court also allowed the plea and set aside the tender notification calling for employment of drivers and conductor.
Case Title: G.Selvamoorthy v The Chief Engineer (Personnel)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 375
The Madras High Court has recently observed that in service jurisprudence when two interpretations could be given to rules relating to penalty and punishment, the one favourable to the employee should be given effect.
In allowing the plea by directing an enhancement in the petitioner's retirement benefits, Justice RN Manjula observed that since service jurisprudence was similar to penal jurisprudence due to the imposition of a penalty, such a view, akin to one taken in penal jurisprudence while giving the accused the benefit of doubt, could be imported to service jurisprudence as well.
Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu v K Parvathy
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (mad) 378
The Madras High Court recently observed that when special rules for recruitment to a particular post, had already granted a five-year age relaxation to candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, further relaxation under the General rules was impermissible.
The Court was seized of appeals by the State, challenging an order of a single bench which had set aside the cancellation of the appointment of some individuals to the post of “cook” under the Adi Dravidar Welfare Department. In doing so, the single bench extended the maximum age limit for application from 35 years to 40 years for candidates belonging to the SC/ST community.
In allowing the appeal, a division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice R Kalaimathi observed that such relaxation was beyond the scope of judicial review and the courts could not extend such age limits fixed by the employer under the statutory rules.
Case Title: R Sumathi v Secretary to Government
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 393
The Madras High Court recently directed the State Government and police authorities to give accelerated promotion to Sumathi, a Grade I Constable who was assigned to collect information about the notorious Forest Brigand Veerappan.
Justice K Kumaresh Babu observed that the authorities had already given accelerated promotion to another Sub-Inspector of the Special Branch assigned with a similar task. The court noted that Sumathi had taken a larger risk and performed a better duty and thus declining promotion to her would be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Case Title: University of Madras v Dr. UT Manisundar (Died) and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 408
The Madras High Court recently directed the Madras University to frame statutes to govern the service conditions of its employees. The court added that it was painful that the University, with such a stature and standing and having been established a century ago did not have any such service conditions already in place.
The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice K Kumaresh Babu directed the University to frame the guidelines within six months and also directed the State Government to govern the service conditions of the employees. The court also pointed out that such regulation would not govern the teaching faculty as they are governed by the University Grants Commission.