IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.03.2010 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.6130 of 2010 1 S.A.ANTONY [ PETITIONER ] Vs 1 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HANDLOOM, HANDICRAFTS, TEXTILES AND KHADHI DEPARTMENT. FORT ST.GEORGE, CHENNAI 9. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF SERICULTURE SALEM. 3 THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SERICULTURE # 1278-B, PATTUNILAYAM SATHUVACHERRI VELLORE. [ RESPONDENTS ] Prayer : Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent in connection with the impugned proceedings passed by the 2nd respondent in Proc. No.12886/E1/2009 dated 11.8.2009 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to fix the pension amount after the disposal of the appeal before the 1st respondent. For Petitioner :: Mr.S.Sivakumar For Respondents :: Mr.P.Subramanian, A.G.P. O R D E R This is a second round of the writ petitioner coming to the Court. In the first round of litigation, he filed W.P.Nos.14172 to 14174 of 2007, challenging the orders of punishment. A learned Judge of this Court by a common order dated 1.8.2007 dismissed the Writ Petitions filed by him. This was on the ground that he had already filed an appeal before the 1st respondent and pending the appeal, he cannot seek to quash the orders dated 22.7.2005, 18.7.2005 and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 22.7.2005. In that Writ Petitions, he not only asked for setting aside the orders of punishment but also for inclusion of his name in the panel for promotion to the post of Joint Director of Sericulture. This court held that when the petitioner is facing penalty, the question of including his name in the promotion panel will not arise. 2. As against the order passed by the learned Judge, the petitioner preferred three Writ Appeals being W.A.Nos.1423 to 1425 of 2009. A Division Bench of this Court by a common order dated 13.10.2009 disposed of the writ appeals. In paragraph 4 of the order, the Division Bench held that they do not find any error on the part of the learned Single Judge in having declined to grant the relief sought for in the Writ Petition. It was also noted that the petitioner has also retired during the pendency of the writ appeals and the better course was to expedite hearing of the Departmental appeals preferred by him. 3. With that finding in paragraph 5, the Division Bench observed as follows: "5. The appellant has filed three appeals against three punishment orders passed by the Department and those appeals are pending before the 1st respondent Secretary to Government, Handloom, Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadi Department. We request the 1st respondent to decide those appeals, if not decided so far, within a period of six months from this date. The present writ appeals stand disposed of accordingly, but there shall be no order as to costs." 4. It is now stated that petitioner's appeals are yet to be disposed of by the respondent. Therefore the petitioner has once again come forward with the present prayer to quash the proceedings dated 11.8.2009. By the impugned proceedings, the Commissioner for Sericulture, Salem, namely the 2nd respondent informed the petitioner that the pay of the petitioner was revised consequent on the revision of scale of pay ordered by the State Government vide G.O.Ms.No.234, Finance dated 1.6.2009. It was also stated that the said revision is without prejudice to disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner as on 30.6.2009. The petitioner states that if the respondents are allowed to revise the scale of pay, it may affect his pension and he will not get the appropriate scale of pay. Further, the appeals may be allowed as prayed for by him. Therefore, without deciding the appeals, the respondent should not fix the scale of pay on the lower post, which not only affects his existing emoluments but also future pension. Even until such time the Government disposes of his appeal as directed by the Division Bench, the impugned order should not be given effect to. This court is unable to grant the relief prayed for by the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. Firstly, the order itself says that it is only without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner. Therefore, it is only provisional. Secondly, this Court cannot act as an authority to grant interim order while the final relief is to be granted by the State Government. This Court should not be reduced to that level of granting interim order, whereas the final relief is to be granted by an authority of the Government. 6. Under the circumstances, this Writ Petition cannot be entertained. The prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be considered by this Court. Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. ajr To 1 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HANDLOOM, HANDICRAFTS, TEXTILES AND KHADHI DEPARTMENT. FORT ST.GEORGE CHENNAI 9. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF SERICULTURE SALEM. 3 THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SERICULTURE # 1278-B, PATTUNILAYAM SATHUVACHERRI VELLORE. + 1 CC TO Govt., Pleader Sr 20911 W.P.No.6130 of 2010 AKR (CO) RH (8.4.10) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/