Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 600 (MAD)

P. Velayuthan v. Director Of Agriculture, Chennai

2012-02-06

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order Pro.D.Dis.opsl/158507/96 dated 10.5.2000 passed by the first respondent, with consequential relief of issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent to regularise his service from 30.6.95 to 17.7.1995 as compulsory wait and to grant salary for the said period. 2. The petitioner was transferred on 22.6.1995. The petitioner challenged the order of transfer before the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal on 1.7.1995. The Tribunal stayed the transfer. In pursuance to the interim order granted by the Tribunal, the petitioner filed representation for permission to join at the original place on posting. The posting order was only issued to the petitioner on 17.7.1995. The petitioner therefore, filed representation for treating the period of absence i.e. 1.7.1995 to 16.7.1995 as waiting period. The respondents did not accept the request of the petitioner and ordered the period to be treated as leave of kind due. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the action of the respondent is contrary to F.R. 9(6)(3) which reads as under: "Compulsory Wait for orders of Posting (3) When a Government servant has compulsorily to wait for orders of posting, such period of waiting shall be treated as duty. During such period, he shall be eligible to draw the pay plus special pay which he would have drawn had he continued in the post he held immediately before the period of compulsory wait or the pay plus special pay which he will draw on taking charge of the new post, whichever is less. For this purpose, no temporary post need be created. The Compensatory allowances shall be reckoned at the rates admissible at the station in which he was on compulsory wait." 4. The petitioner filed representation against the decision of the respondent to treat the period of leave as waiting period, on the ground that in pursuance to the stay order, the petitioner had reported for duty, and it was the respondent who did not allow him to join duty till fresh order of transfer was issued. The representation filed by the petitioner stands rejected. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order. The appeal was also rejected on 10.5.2005. 5. The representation filed by the petitioner stands rejected. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order. The appeal was also rejected on 10.5.2005. 5. The petitioner has challenged the order rejecting the representation and the appeal, on the ground that once the order of transfer was stayed by the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and the petitioner had reported for duty along with copy of the stay order, it was not open to the respondent not to allow the petitioner to join duty. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner therefore, is that once the fault was with the respondent in not allowing the petitioner to join duty, the petitioner cannot deny the salary for the said period, as the petitioner was not allowed to join duty inspite of presenting himself for the duty. 7. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Electronic Corporation of India and others vs. Sateesh S.Rao Sonawalkar [ (2004)11 SCC 550 ] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to lay down that the period when an employee had reported for duty in pursuance to the stay order granted by the Court, and the respondent failed to take a decision on the joining report submitted by the employee that period has to be treated to be the period on duty, as the action of the respondent would be contrary to the stay order. 8. The case of the petitioner squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above. 9. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the respondent to treat the period from 1.7.1995 to 16.7.1995 as a period on duty, and pay salary for the said period to the petitioner. No costs.