Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1253 (MAD)

S. Rajendran v. State of Tamilnadu

2012-03-08

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2012
Judgment 1. Petitioner a Diploma holder in Civil Engineering, joined Public Works Department as Technical Assistant on 10.09.1970 at Ground water Investigation Project UNDP at Thanjavur. 2. On winding up of the project, the petitoiner was appointed as Draftsman Grade III at Ground Water Division, Karaikudi from 04.05.1972. 3. The petitioner was promoted as Draftsman Grade II in the same division. The petitioner acquired qualification of B.E while in service and requested the respondents, to give him posting as Assistant Engineer as per the rules and practice followed by the department. 4. Vide order dated 5.5.1981, the Chief Engineer (General) appointed the petitioner as temporary Assistant Engineer, in the pay scale of Rs.600-1050. The petitioner joined on 29.05.1981. 5. Thereafter, another appointment order was issued, appointing the petitioner as Junior Engineer, keeping in view that the post of Assistant Engineer was higher, the petitioner did not accept the offer of appointment as junior Engineer, and continued working as Assistant Engineer. 6. The petitioner thereafter acquired M.E. Degree in 1984, and as per service rules the petitioner was also granted two increments for acquiring higher qualification. 7. The petitioner was served with a letter dated 2.08.1980, directing the petitioner to join as Junior Engineer. In compliance, the petitioner joined on 01.03.1988 as Junior Engineer. The pay of the petitioner was refixed in the post of Junior Engineer, and the two increments were also withdrawn. The excess amount paid to the petitioner was also recovered. 8. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order filed an appeal on 23.08.1989 to Chief Engineer, requesting him to reconsider the order of reversion. 9. The sate of Tamilnadu issued Government instructions vide G.O.Ms.No.1, Public Works Department, dated 02.01.1990, by accepting the recommendation of the Chief Engineer and TNPSC that the persons having qualification of B.E in the department with five years experience could be appointed as Assistant Engineer. 10. The submission of the petitioner is, that similarly situated persons had requested the Chief Engineer for regularising their service from the date of temporary appointment as Assistant Engineer on acquiring qualification. 11. Similarly situated persons thereafter filed writ petition in this court for being reappointed to the post of Assistant Engineer from the date of temporary appointment as Assistant Engineer with consequential monetary benefits. 12. The writ was transferred to the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal in the year 1993-94. 13. 11. Similarly situated persons thereafter filed writ petition in this court for being reappointed to the post of Assistant Engineer from the date of temporary appointment as Assistant Engineer with consequential monetary benefits. 12. The writ was transferred to the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal in the year 1993-94. 13. The petitioner however opted for voluntary retirement under fundament Rule 56, which was accepted, and he was allowed to retire from service on 02.08.1995. 14. The case of the petitioner is that the writ petition filed by the colleagues of the petitioner were allowed by the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal. Whereby the order of reversion was set aside with all consequential benefits. The order has attained finality. 15. The petitioner has approached this court, in the year 2001 with a prayer that the respondents be directed to issue order regularising his service as Assistant Engineer from 29.05.1981, with all attendant and regular service benefits and also grant retiral benefit to the petitioner. 16. Only ground for filing this writ petition is, that in case of similarly situated persons, the order of reversion was set aside. Therefore, petitioner is also entitled to the similar treatment. 17. On consideration, I find no merits in the writ petition, the judgment on which the reliance is placed by the petitioner cannot be said to be a precedent, as the order of reversion of those employees were set aside by court, being in employment and covered by the Government instructions. 18. The petitioner for the reasons best known chose not to challenge this order of reversion, and opted for voluntary retirement. 19. It is after six years of his retirement, that the petitioner has approached this court, for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus, to treat him at par with his other similarly situated person and regularise his service as Assistant Engineer, without challenging the order of reversion. 20. The writ is opposed on the ground that other persons were still in employment and had challenged the order of reversion, whereas the petitioner admittedly sought voluntary retirement, which was accepted. It is not open to the petitioner to challenge the order of reversion after six years of retirement. The writ petition therefore suffers from delay and laches. 21. The decision by the court in other case, does not entitle a party to reopen the closed matters. 22. It is not open to the petitioner to challenge the order of reversion after six years of retirement. The writ petition therefore suffers from delay and laches. 21. The decision by the court in other case, does not entitle a party to reopen the closed matters. 22. The contention of the petitioner, that refixation of pay is a recurring cause of action, therefore the writ petition cannot be said to be belated. This contention cannot be accepted, as the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the order of reversion. Once the order of reversion is not set aside the petitioner cannot claim regularisation on the post of Assistant Engineer, to claim pay and pension of the post. It is well settled law that even void orders can be challenged within three years, the petition therefore suffers from delay and laches. As already observed, the closed matters cannot be reopened only on the basis of subsequent judgment or change of Law. No merits. Dismissed. No costs.