0

Madras High Court upholds the tribunal decision that the petitioners cannot claim the status of casual labourers under Railways.

Blog, blog , , , , ,

Title: C. Sekar and Others. Vs.  Union of India.

Decided On: September 19, 2023.

W.P.No.15918 of 2019.

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D. Krishnakumar. And P.B. Balaji.

Facts:

The petitioners were engaged as casual labourers during the year 1983 under the Permanent Way Inspectors (presently Senior Section Engineers/P.Way) in the Engineering Department, Tiruchirapally Division, Southern Railway. The petitioners state that 345 casual labourers including the petitioners were brought into the supplementary casual labour register as on 2003. The grievance of the petitioners is that according to the Railway Board’s practice, all classified vacancies that became available upto 31.12.1982 should be filled from among casual labourers and substitutes, with a special relaxation in respect of Class IV vacancies in workshops due to special requirement of workshops and that despite being eligible the respondents have not regularized the petitioners, who were all casual labourers. The respondents filed a counter before the Tribunal denying the claim of the petitioners that they were all casual labourers. The Tribunal held that the petitioners never worked as casual labourers in the Railways and therefore they cannot claim any legal right to the status of casual labourers and consequently seek absorption. So, the petitioner approached this court.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

The petitioners vehemently contended before the court that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the petitioners’ claim that they were all entitled for absorption and in such process the Tribunal has not considered several instructions on the said subject that came to be issued by the respondent themselves and that when several casual labourers were included for appointment to the post of Trackman, the petitioners were also entitled for being absorbed. The respondents submits that the impugned order does not require any interference as admittedly the petitioners were not casual labourers and they have not been able to establish the said factum even before the Tribunal by producing any reliable or relevant piece of evidence and he therefore prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. The documents that are relied on by the petitioners are certificates issued by the Permanent Way Inspector, Mayiladuthurai Junction, Southern Railway Mayavaram. On a perusal of the various certificates that have been issued to the petitioners, it is evident that the petitioners were engaged as labourers for a brief period of time viz., between 28.12.1983 and 04.01.1984 to meet flood/emergency situation. The said certificates clearly spells out that the concerned labourers would not be entitled for engagement as casual labourers and that they will have no claim for being considered for engagement as such, in future, as a matter of course. It is also mentioned that no medical examination was carried out. Thus, it can be seen that the respondents have made it abundantly clear that the petitioners cannot claim to be casual labourers.  

The petitioners have not produced any other documents before the Tribunal to establish their legal right to claim absorption. The Tribunal has also rightly considered all these factors and found that the petitioners cannot claim the status of casual labourers and even from the relevant documents it was noticed that they were not even listed in the casual labour service camp. The certificates issued to the petitioners and relied on by the petitioners before the Tribunal as well as before us does not give us a slightest indication that the petitioners were employed as casual labourers. On the other hand, it only clearly shows that the petitioners cannot claim the status of casual labourers. Thus, the court held that the order of the Tribunal is well reasoned and does not call for any interference.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

0

Madras High Court directs Public Health Department to consider compassionate appointment of petitioner in any suitable post.

blog, Blog , , , ,

Title: V. Priyadharsan. Vs.  The Government of Tamil Nadu.

Decided On: September 19, 2023.

W.P.No.1563 of 2020.

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Battu Devanand.

Facts:

The petitioner is the only son of his mother Late G.Usha Rani, who worked as Auxiliary Nursing Midwife in Government Primary Health Centre, Kottarakudi, who died in harness on 14.05.2012. On the date of death of his mother, the petitioner was only 14 years of old. The father of the petitioner was working as Driver. But he is unable to support the petitioner, since he has another wife and separate family. At the time of death of his mother, he was studying only 9th Standard and after his mother’s death, he was put in dark distress, as he depended on his mother emotionally and financially. After completion of +1, he applied for appointment on compassionate grounds on 06.04.2015. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 14.10.2019 as a reminder by enclosing all relevant documents to all the respondents. But the respondents failed to consider the claim of the petitioner. Against the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner’s claim for terminal benefits, family pension and compassionate appointment, he filed a writ petition in W.P.No.31203 of 2019. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 06.11.2019 to consider the representations dated 06.04.2015 and 14.10.2019 of the petitioner. In pursuance to the same, the 3rd respondent issued the impugned letter dated 24.12.2019 stating that the request of the petitioner is rejected on the ground that the father of the petitioner is working as Driver in Government. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

The petitioner contends that he is emotionally and financially depended on her mother, as his father is having separate family, cannot be brushed away in the absence of any rebuttal evidence on behalf of the respondents. However, as and when the father of the petitioner also issued No Objection Certificate to grant terminal benefits, pension and for appointment on compassionate grounds to the petitioner, for the death of the petitioner’s mother, as he is the only legal heir of her, the reasons stated in the order impugned in the writ petition to reject the claim of the petitioner are irrational, illegal and unjust. The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family tied over the sudden crisis and to relieve the family of the deceased from financial destitution and to help it to get over the hard situation. In the present case, after sudden death of his mother, the petitioner has no support to survive at the age of 14 years. However, by doing some coolie works, he studied up to +1 and submitted application on 06.04.2015 within the time permitted to submit application seeking compassionate appointment. The respondents failed to consider the fact that the father of the petitioner is having another wife and separate family and the petitioner is the son of the second wife of his father. Without considering all these factual aspects, the 3rd respondent issued the impugned letter rejecting the claim of the petitioner by order dated 24.12.2019, which is unjust and irrational. The respondents ought to have kept in mind that the scheme of compassionate ground appointment was introduced by the Government as a welfare measure to help the legal heirs of the deceased Government servants appreciating the services rendered by them for the Government.

The court allowed the petition by issuing the following directions:

  • The impugned letter dated 24.12.2019 of the 3rd respondent is hereby set aside.
  • The respondents are directed to release the terminal benefits for the death of the mother of the petitioner to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
  • The respondents are further directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in any suitable post within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Conclusion:

The Court held that in the present case, the respondents failed to consider the case of the petitioner in proper perspective. As such, the letter dated 24.12.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent, which is impugned in this writ petition, is unsustainable and accordingly, it was set aside and directed the respondents to consider appointment of petitioner in any suitable post.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

0

Madras High Court says there is no ground to interfere in the judgment of the trial Court in convicting an accused.

Blog, blog , , , ,

Title: V. Radhakrishnan. Vs.  The State.

Decided On: September 19, 2023.

Crl.A.No.627 of 2016.

Coram: Hon’ble Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran.

Facts:

The accused while serving as VAO of Kottathupatty Village, demand of illegal gratification of Rs.2000/- in two instalments of Rs.1000/- by the accused for name transfer in the Patta was lodged on 24.11.2003 at 9.30 a.m. After registration of the case, trap was laid. At about 15.15 hours the accused demanded and accepted Rs.1000/- from the defacto complainant. The said transaction was witnessed by the shadow witness Paramasivam.The phenolphthalein smeared currency of one 500 Rupees notes and five hundred rupees notes were recovered from the accused which was kept in the left outer shirt pocket. The trial Court framed charges under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C Act. The trial Court accepting the case of the defacto complainant regarding the demand and acceptance of Rs.1000/- as bribe by the accused on 24.11.2003, convicted and sentenced him to undergo 1 year R.I and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo 6 months S.I for the offence under Section 7 of P.C Act and to undergo 2 years R.I and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo S.I for 6 months. This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to set aside the order passed by the Special Judge, Special Court for trial under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

It is a case of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The bribe amount of Rs.1,000/- smeared with the phenolphthalein and marked under the Entrustment Mahazar was recovered from the accused under Seizure Mahazar. The currency recovered from the accused tallied with the currency number found in the Entrustment Mahazar. In addition, the hands of the accused was tested with the Sodium Carbonate solution. The solution turned red indicates handling of phenolphthalein. The shirt pocket portion where the money was kept by the accused also subjected to the phenolphthalein test and proved positive. The trial Court has also found that there is no corroboration for the allegations of second demand on 22.11.2003. However, the third demand on the day of the trap and successful completion of the trap leads to the inference of the previous demand. The third demand and proof of third demand cannot be an inference for the earlier demand unless and until, it is proved beyond doubt. In this case the second demand on 22.11.2003 lacks corroboration, but it does not disproved the case of the prosecution in respect of the demand on 24.11.2003 and the receipt of the same by the accused. The defence taken by the accused that the money was planted in his shirt pocket is not probable, since not only his shirt pocket portion, but both of his hands were found positive for phenolphthalein. Unless and until the accused had received the money and counted it before keeping it in his pocket, it is impossible for both his hands to contact phenolphthalein. Neither PW.2 nor PW.3 had any animosity against this appellant to depose facts which is not true. Inspite of incise cross examination of these two witnesses, their credibility has not impeached. Therefore, the evidence of 2nd witness corroborated by the eye witness 3rd witness of the prosecution for demand and acceptance of Rs.1,000/- on 24.11.2003 during the trap besides scientific proof. Recovery of the tainted money from the possession of the accused prove the case of the prosecution to the core. The trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant. There is no ground to interfere in the judgment of the trial Court.

Conclusion:

The Court Concludes that this Criminal Appeal shall be dismissed and the trial Court conviction and sentence shall be confirmed. The trial Court is directed to secure the appellant/accused and commit him to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence. The period of sentence already undergone by the accused shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

 

0

Madras High Court directs BPCL is to vacate the subject Government land within 1 month.

Blog, blog , , , ,

Title: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs.  State of Tamil Nadu.

Decided On: September 19, 2023.

W.P.No.20312 of 2020 and W.M.P.No.25096 of 2020.

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.M. Subramaniam.

Facts:

The Government issued G.O. on 03.02.1978 and ordered to lease out an extent of 0.21 6/16 acres (or) 21.375 cents of the Government land in Udhagai Taluk, Nilgiris District in favour of M/s. N.N Naidu & Sons for the period from 17.07.1967 to 13.06.1978 with the condition that the lease will not be renewed after 30.06.1978. Accordingly, the Government had ordered for resumption of the subject land on 01.07.1978. The Government had ordered for leasing out the subject land to M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, for a period of 13 years from 15.05.1981 to 14.05.1994. On expiry of the lease period, the lease was renewed for a further period of 9 years from 15.05.1994 to 14.05.2003. The lessee BPCL had not remitted the lease amount to the Government and action was initiated under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act by the Tahsildar, Udhagamandalam against the lessee.   

The present case, the lease period expired as early as 14.05.2003 and in view of pendency of W.P.No.13012 of 2007, filed by M/s.N.N. Naidu and Sons (Dealer of BPCL) and interim stay granted thereon, further renewal of lease could not be made. While dismissing the writ petition on 08.08.2019, the Hon’ble High Court has pointed out that M/S. N.N.Naidu & Sons has no locus standi to challenge the demand notice issued by the Tahsildar, as they were not party to the notice. The petitioner’s Company having known the above fact, allowed the dealer to contest the case unnecessarily for the past 13 years and failed in the legal forum, now has come forward to negotiate with the administration for the fixation of the fair lease rent.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

In the present case, the petitioner lessee is neither paying the lease rent nor is vacating the Government land so as to put the land for any kind of public interest. the Government issued orders for collection of lease rent at 7% of land cost inclusive of additional surcharge and 14% of land cost inclusive of additional surcharge for non commercial purpose and commercial purposes respectively, in respect of the leases in the Municipal areas and Corporation limits. Based on the said Government Order, the lease rent at the rate of 14% of the land cost is worked out as lease rent and the petitioner has not challenged the Government Order having accepted the renewal of lease and fixation of lease rent as ordered by the Government. The petitioner company has to abide by the terms and conditions. The petitioner company having agreed to the terms and conditions laid down by the Government and the District Administration, Nilgiris District, is obligated to comply with the same. The penal rent at the rate of 12% of the lease rent per annum was also imposed by way of the condition which was agreed by the petitioner company.

The petitioner company is in unauthorised occupation of the valuable Government land. Adjacent to the petitioner company, there are other petrol bunks which are run by other petroleum corporations. Thus, resumption of land would not cause any public inconvenience in that locality. The petitioner is a chronic defaulter in payment of lease rent and they have continuously committed default in payment of the rent. The petitioner BPCL, being a commercial organization and running petrol bunk for profit, is not entitled to claim any leniency either from the Government of Tamil Nadu or from the hands of this Court. The petitioner is selling petroleum products and making profit without paying lease rent to the Government of Tamil Nadu resulted in monetary loss to the state exchequer. As rightly pointed out that Udhagamandalam is a hilly area where 45% of the area is covered by forest, the District Administration finds it difficult to identify lands for public purposes.

The court passed the following orders:

  • The relief as such sought for in the present writ petition stands rejected.
  • The petitioner BPCL is directed to vacate the subject Government land within a period of one (1) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and to hand over vacant possession to the District Administration of Nilgiris District.
  • In the event of failure to vacate the premises within a month, the respondents 1 to 3 are directed to evict the petitioner and resume the Government land immediately on expiry of the 1month period.
  • The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to recover the arrears of lease rent and other charges as admissible under law by following the procedures as contemplated.

Conclusion:

Since the petitioners has not established any acceptable grounds for the purpose of considering their case for grant of relief. The court directed BPCL to vacate the land and handover the possession to District Administration of Nilgiris District within 1 month.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

0

The petitioner as an artisan is entitled to sell the articles made by him and this right is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India says Madras High Court.

Blog, blog , , , ,

Title: Prakash Vs. The District Collector, Tirunelveli District.

Decided On: September 16, 2023.

W.P(MD)No.22892 of 2023.

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.R. Swaminathan.

Facts:

The Petitioner hails from Rajasthan. He and his team are presently in Palayamkottai for the purpose of making idols. He has made a few scores of Vinayaka idols. His grievance is that the third respondent, on instructions from the respondents 1 and 2 is preventing him from selling the idols that have already been made. The petitioner is said to have borrowed a substantial sum. If he is unable to sell the idols, he will be financially ruined. For forbearing the respondents from interfering with his right, the present writ petition came to be filed.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

If the idols are eco- friendly, they can be manufactured and sold and such activities cannot be stopped for any reason. If the police or the authorities indulge in any act of prevention, that would be rank illegality. They will have to answer if the aggrieved individual invokes public law remedy. Damages will have to be paid for the business loss caused. The petitioner claims that the plaster of paris has been used only up to permissible level. According to him, the buyers may want the same for any purpose. They could be installed at homes or temples or even marriage halls. While I endorse the said contention, I make it clear that immersion of idols containing plaster of paris cannot be permitted. But their sales cannot be prevented by the authorities. In order to ensure that the norms regarding immersion are not violated, the petitioner is directed to furnish the details of the purchasers. Sale of every idol will have to be duly accounted. The petitioner shall make an register containing particulars of those who are purchasing from him. The register shall be open for inspection by the respondents. If the Vinayaka idol can be dissolved in an ecofriendly manner, its installation cannot be stopped. Visarjan can be in any creative manner. In any event, Tamirabarani or any water body cannot be used for immersion of idols made with plaster of paris. The petitioner as an artisan is entitled to sell the articles made by him and this right is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The restraint on immersion is reasonable restriction. But prevention of sale would amount to violation of the petitioner’s fundamental right. The respondents shall not prevent the petitioner from selling the idols made by him. Ofcourse the sale transactions are subject to the condition mentioned above.

Conclusion:

The Held that Lord Vinayaka symbolizes luck. He is worshipped by Hindus who believe that He will remove all obstacles. It was the great patriot Sri. Bal Gangadhar Tilak who organized Ganesh Chaturthi Processions. They have helped to unify the society by cutting across caste differences. The right to organize Vinayakar Chaturthi processions is not the subject matter of this writ petition and the court refrained from going into the issue.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

 

1 2 3 … 10