Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 707 (MAD)

R. Natesan v. State of Tamil Nadu

2014-03-20

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2014
Judgment 1. The petitioner filed Original Application in O.A. No. 1749 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal to quash the order dated 27.11.2000 of the District Forest Officer, Harur Forest Division, Harur, the third respondent herein and also sought for a direction to treat the period of suspension from 11.08.1984 to 03.12.1987 and from 23.10.1990 to 16.10.1994 as duty and to disburse the arrears of salary with interest. However, on 02.04.2002, the Tribunal disposed the said O.A. No. 1749 of 2002 in the following terms: "5.The period of suspension and the period of unemployment cannot be considered as duty period because the charge has been made out and ultimately the applicant has been found guilty of the charge. Therefore, there is no question of applying Fundamental Rule 54 or treating the period as the period where the applicant was prevented from discharging his duties. No doubt, the rigour of the regularisation can be mitigated further because the applicant has been adequately punished by imposition of reduction in rank. 6. Therefore, the respondents are directed to adjust the period of absence as against his unearned leave on medical certificate which stands to the credit of the applicant and for this period the applicant will be eligible for pay. A Government servant is eligible for a total period of 18 months of unearned leave on medical certificate and we understand that applicant has joined service long before 1984 and he has also continued in service after 1990 till date. He has put in more than 10 years of service and the learned counsel for the applicant Mr. N. Kannadasan also submits that he has got about 9 years still to serve. Therefore, there can be no difficulty in adjusting one year period as unearned leave on medical certificate, to which period the applicant will be entitled for full pay. Barring this period of one year, the regularisation made in the impugned order is upheld. The applicant is entitled for the limited relief as indicated above. The application is ordered accordingly." That is, the Tribunal held that the relief as sought for by the petitioner could not be granted. The Tribunal also held that the petitioner cannot seek to treat the period of suspension as duty period. However, the Tribunal thought of granting a limited relief in para 6 of the aforesaid order. 2. The application is ordered accordingly." That is, the Tribunal held that the relief as sought for by the petitioner could not be granted. The Tribunal also held that the petitioner cannot seek to treat the period of suspension as duty period. However, the Tribunal thought of granting a limited relief in para 6 of the aforesaid order. 2. The case of the petitioner is that though the order of the Tribunal attained finality, the limited relief granted by the Tribunal in para 6 is not granted to the petitioner. Hence, he made a representation dated 02.11.2012 to the respondents to implement the order of the Tribunal. But no order is passed by the respondents till date. Hence, he filed the present writ petition. 3. The third respondent has filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief that was granted by the Tribunal in para 6 of its order, as extracted above. 4. Heard the submissions made on either side. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the order of the Tribunal attained finality, the respondents are bound to comply with the same. 6. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Forests) has sought to argue that the order of the Tribunal is erroneous. 7. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 8. In these circumstances, I am of the view that as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the order of the Tribunal attained finality, the limited relief granted by the Tribunal cannot be denied by the respondents. Hence, the first respondent is directed to comply with the direction issued by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1749 of 2002 dated 02.04.2002 and more particularly, in the light of para 6, as extracted above, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.