Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2259 (MAD)

B. Saravanan v. Director of Collegiate Education

2016-07-14

B.RAJENDRAN

body2016
ORDER : The petitioners have been appointed in various posts in the third respondent College in the year 2015, in the sanctioned posts, consequent to the retirement vacancy of certain persons. The grievance of the petitioners is that although they have been appointed in the sanctioned posts, they have not been paid with the salary by the management, since their appointments have not been approved. In this regard, the third respondent had already sent the proposals to the first respondent seeking approval of the appointment of the petitioners in the respective posts. In addition thereto, the petitioners have also submitted representations, dated 23.03.2016, to the first respondent seeking for approval and sanction, in the light of approval given by the first respondent to similarly placed persons like P. Ravichandran in order passed in W.A. No. 2318 of 2011, dated 11.10.2013, Non-Teaching Staffs Mr. M. Stephen and Mr.Cithirairaj Gnanadhasan vide Na.Ka.No.59741/F2/2014, dated 13.01.2015, with all monetary benefits, based on the order of this High Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P. No. 23712 of 2008, dated 26.09.2008; W.A. No. 99 of 2009, dated 24.04.2009; and S.L.P. No. 27331 of 2013, dated 04.10.2013, with monetary benefits, seniority in service and other attendant benefits . Since the said representations have not been considered, they have come to this Court. 2. Mrs. A.V. Bharathi, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that she is giving up respondents 2 and 3. She has also made an endorsement to that effect. She would further add that though, a larger relief is sought for, the petitioners would be satisfied, if the 1st respondent is directed to consider the representations of the petitioners, dated 23.03.2016, and to pass appropriate orders, in the light of approval given by the 1st respondent to the similarly placed persons, within a time frame. 3. Mrs. M.E. Raniselvam, the learned Additional Government Pleader, who took notice on behalf of the 1st respondent, has got no serious objection in directing the 1st respondent to consider the representations of the petitioners, dated 23.03.2016 and to pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law. 4. Heard both sides. I have considered the above submissions. 5. 3. Mrs. M.E. Raniselvam, the learned Additional Government Pleader, who took notice on behalf of the 1st respondent, has got no serious objection in directing the 1st respondent to consider the representations of the petitioners, dated 23.03.2016 and to pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law. 4. Heard both sides. I have considered the above submissions. 5. Considering the above submission and also the fact that the petitioners have restricted their relief and also the fact that the petitioners have given up the respondents 2 and 3 and also the fact that the third respondent has already sent the proposals to the first respondent seeking approval of the appointment of the petitioners in the respective posts, hereby directs the first respondent-Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai, to consider the representations of the petitioners, dated 23.03.2016, in the light of the approval granted to similarly placed persons like P. Ravichandran in order passed in W.A. No. 2318 of 2011, dated 11.10.2013, Non-Teaching Staffs Mr. M. Stephen and Mr. Cithirairaj Gnanadhasan vide Na.Ka.No.59741/F2/2014, dated 13.01.2015, with all monetary benefits, based on the order of this High Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P. No. 23712 of 2008, dated 26.09.2008; W.A. No. 99 of 2009, dated 24.04.2009; and S.L.P. No. 27331 of 2013, dated 04.10.2013, and pass appropriate orders, after giving notice and affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to them, subject to their eligibility, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the claim made by the petitioners. 6. These Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs.