Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3807 (MAD)

A. Rangamannar v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

2010-08-27

M.M.SUNDRESH

body2010
JUDGMENT :- 1. The petitioner is a retired Inspector of Assessment of the 3rd respondent. The petitioner initially was appointed as a non-provincial maistry in the Public Works Department. The petitioner worked in the said capacity till 16.01.1968 in the work charged establishment. Thereafter, the petitioner tendered his resignation which was accepted by the proceedings dated 19.02.1968 with effect from 16.01.1968. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners service rendered with the Public Works Department in the work charged establishment as a non-provincial maistry is a non-provincial service. 2. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as a Bill Collector by the Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board by the proceedings dated 05.01.1968. After working in the various capacities, the petitioner retired as Inspector of Assessment on 31.08.1986. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition contending that the proceedings of the 3rd respondent rejecting the case of the petitioner for considering the services rendered by him in the Public Works Department till 16.01.1968 is illegal and unjustified. 3. From the above said facts, it is clear that the petitioners appointment in the Public Works Department in the work charged establishment is a non-provincial service. The petitioner was working in the said Department as a non-provisional maistry in the work charged establishment. Thereafter he resigned his job and joined the respondents 2 and 3. Therefore the above said facts would make it clear that the petitioners entry into the respondents 2 and 3 is a fresh appointment and in the absence of any rule and regulations, the services rendered by him with the first respondent cannot be taken into account. Admittedly the petitioner was earlier working in a different Department and the services rendered by him is a non-provincial service. Further the petitioner has resigned the earlier job and joined the respondents 2 and 3 afresh. 4. Considering the above said facts, this Court does not find any interference to quash the impugned proceedings. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.