IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07.07.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI W.P.No.4360 Of 2010 and MP.No.1 of 2010 K.Kannan .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., rep by its Senior Regional Manager, Nagai Region, Nagapattinam-611001. 2.The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Rep by its General Manager (Administration), 42, Thambuswamy Road, Chennai -10. 3.The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Rep by its Managing Director, 42, Thambuswamy Road, Chennai -10. .. Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings Na.Ka.AE2/73931/07 dated 10.02.2010 of the second respondent herein and to quash the same and consequently to direct the respondent to retain the petitioner in the administrative wing For Petitioner : Mr.S.Venkataraman For Respondents : Mr.V.Selvanayagam for R2 and R3 ORDER On consent, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. The writ petition is filed against the impugned proceedings of the second respondent in which the second respondent has negatived the petitioners representation to absolve him on administrative side. 2. The writ petitioner was originally employed in the respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Corporation as helper in Modern Rice Mill (herein after referred as 'MRM') at Erukkur, Nagai District and he was at his request transferred as Office Assistant on General Administrative wing to Nagai Regional Office during 2004. While he was continuing so, the petitioner along with several others was transferred as helper to MRM, Sitharkadu. The order of transfer was not given effect to, insofar as the petitioner by memo dated 06.06.2008 issued by the first respondent and the petitioner was redeployed as Office Assistant in the office of the Senior Regional Manager, Nagai Region and thereafter posted as Office Assistant in the unit office, Mayiladuthurai, thus continuing to work as Office Assistant on general side. 3. In the meanwhile, the other employees covered under the earlier transfer order dated 23.05.2006 thereby reverting them back to MRM, challenged the same in W.P.No.17647 of 2006 and obtained order of stay of transfer on 14.06.2006 pending writ petition. The petitioner was also again reverted back to MRM as helper in Sitharkadu by the first respondent in his proceedings dated 06.05.2008. The same was challenged by the petitioner in WP.13935 of 2008 and on the strength of interim stay of transfer granted by this Court, the petitioner was permitted to continue as Office Assistant on the general side. When the stay order granted in WP.No.17647 of 2006 and WP.No.13935 of 2008 were in force, the Board of Directors on 28.03.2008 considered the representation made by several MRM helpers including that of the workers/writ petitioners in WP.No.17647 of 2006 for their permanent absorption as watchman/packers on redeployment basis in the general side and approved the plea as a special case and absorbed totally 80 workers including that of the petitioners in WP.No.17647 of 2006 on general side as one time concession. As a result, earlier WP.No.17647 of 2006 filed by group of workers against their group transfer as helpers on technical side was dismissed as infructuous on 05.09.2008. 4. It is not in dispute that in spite of general order of transfer and individual order of transfer of the petitioner passed by the first respondent in his proceedings dated 23.05.2006 and 06.05.2008 respectively, the petitioner was permitted to continue as Office Assistant in General Administrative wing, as a result, he did not join as one of the petitioners in WP.No.17647 of 2006 and his name was not also included in the list of MRM on technical side recommended for permanent absorption as watchman/packers on the general administrative side. The same compelled the petitioner to approach the first respondent for his similar permanent absorption on the administrative wing. The third respondent in his communication dated 23.07.2009 and 29.07.2009 to the second respondent, recommended in favour of the petitioner but the second respondent refused to extent the same benefit shown to 80 MRM helpers to the petitioner also by posting him permanently as watchman-cum-packer on administrative wing. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. In the meanwhile, the writ petition filed by the petitioner in WP.No.13935 of 2008 is also disposed of on 16.08.2009 by this court with a direction to the Managing Director, third respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation on par with other 80 MRM helpers and to pass appropriate orders, by taking into consideration the recommendation of the first respondent in his letters dated 23.07.2009 and 27.09.2009 within the stipulated period with further direction to the third respondent/Managing Director not to disturb the petitioner from the current place of work. 6. However, the second respondent has passed the impugned proceedings dated 10.02.2010, thereby rejecting the petitioner's request for his permanent absorption on the general side, mainly on the ground that the earlier decision of the Board was one time measure as a special case and there is no scope for further absorption on the general side. Such rejection order is now challenged in the writ petition. 7. Heard the rival submissions made on both sides. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner joined service only as MRM helper and was subjected to two transfers on 23.04.2006 and 06.05.2008. However, the first order of transfer was not given effect to by one of the respondents and the second order of transfer was stayed by the High Court, thus the petitioner is not at fault for his being allowed to continue as Office Assistant on the general side. The general order of transfer passed by the first respondent in respect of other MRM workers on 23.05.2008 was under similar circumstances stayed by this court, in the earlier writ petition filed by 17 out of 20 workers under transfer and the permanent one time absorption as a special case was given effect to only during the currency of stay order and the writ petition was disposed of only in view of the subsequent development of their permanent absorption. That being so, the authorities concerned ought to have recommended his name also for the permanent absorption on the administrative wing, by taking into consideration, 1) that the petitioner was also originally employed as MRM helper. 2) that more than once was transferred to technical side as MRM helper as other workers and was subsequently retained on the general administrative side, and 3) that he was similarly placed as that of the other MRM who are the petitioners in the writ petition. 9. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the second respondent has despite the recommendation forwarded by the first respondent in his communication dated 20.03.2009 and 27.09.2009 and the direction issued by this court in his writ petition to pass appropriate orders in the light of such https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ recommendation, unreasonably rejected the petitioner's request for his permanent absorption on general side and such order of rejection, according to the petitioner is unfair, unreasonable and biased and is contrary to the direction issued by this court. 10. Whereas the learned Additional Government Pleader would try to defend the impugned order of the second respondent by saying that the petitioner is not aggrieved either by the earlier order of transfer or by the impugned order of rejection passed by the second respondent as the petitioner is continuously working on general administrative wing and he is not likely to be disturbed in the general administrative side despite the fact that earlier permanent absorption of 80 MRM workers is only one time measure. It is also represented that as there is no vacancy as on date, the petitioner's request cannot be favourably considered at this stage. 11. This court finds much bonafide in the contention raised on the side of the petitioner as to why his name should have been included in the earlier recommendation as to how the reason given in the impugned order of rejection is baseless. However, this court is of the reasonable view, that in view of the representation made by the learned Additional Government Pleader and in view of the fact, that he is now continuously working only on the general administrative side as sought for herein, the question of granting further relief in the writ petition does not arise in the absence of any vacancy. 12. In the result, in the light of the submissions made by the learned Additional Government pleader, this court is of the opinion that it would meet the ends of justice, if the respondents, are directed to consider the petitioner's request for permanent absorption on general side on any immediate future vacancy at the appropriate stage and till such time, the petitioner shall not be disturbed from his service on general administrative side. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed. tsh/vsm Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplied Corporation Ltd., Nagai Region, Nagapattinam-611001. 2.The General Manager (Administration), Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., 42, Thambuswamy Road, Chennai -10. 3.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., 42, Thambuswamy Road, Chennai -10. + 1 cc to Mr.V. Selvanaayagam, Advocate SR.48800 + 1 cc to Mr. S. Venkataraman, Advocate SR.49174 W.P.No.4360 Of 2010 and MP.No.1 of 2010 VSV(CO) EU 15.07.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/