BEFORE THE MADRUAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22/09/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE.K.CHANDRU W.P. (MD).No. 7601 of 2008 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2008 K.Nallayan alias Tamilarasan .... Petitioner Vs 1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Tahsildar, Vadipatti Taluk (Madurai North) Madurai District. .... Respondents PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned passed by the second respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.16163-7-A4 dated 03.01.2008 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant and other service benefits and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the period of suspension as duty. - - - - - !For Petitioner... Mr.M.Saravanakumar ^ :ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the
order of the second respondent dated 03.01.2008. The petitioner earlier filed a
writ petition before this Court being W.P.No.8919 of 2007 to consider his
representation dated 03.09.2007. This Court merely directed the second
respondent Tahsildar, Vadipatti to dispose of his representation dated
03.09.2007 within a period of four weeks. The second respondent was also
directed to take note of the appointment order given to the petitioner dated
23.05.1985. It is pursuant to this, the impugned order came to be passed.
2. In the impugned order, it was stated that on account of the death of
one Kamu, the earlier Village Assistant of Panangudi, applications were called
for, by the Tahsildar, Nillakottai. Since the petitioner was the sole
applicant, he was appointed permanently as the Village Assistant. The
petitioner absented himself from work 05.08.1988 till 25.08.1988.
3. When the Village Administrative Officer made a complaint, the
petitioner was given a memo. As he did not submit any explanation and was also
not found in the house for serving the memo, by an order dated, 05.10.1988, the
petitioner was suspended. Therefore, in the vacancy created due to his
suspension one M.Murugan was appointed in the post and he has been continuing in
the said post.
4. In the affidavit filed by the petitioner, he had not explained all
these details. In paragraph:5, he merely stated that he was not paid any salary
from 21.02.1989. When the petitioner is not coming forward to tell the full
truth regarding his absence and the nature of activities that he was doing since
the last 20 days, the petitioner cannot get any relief from this Court. The
petitioner is guilty of laches and delay in moving this Court for getting the
relief.
5. By sending a petition on 03.09.2007, for the first time and by
getting a direction to dispose of the said representation, the petitioner cannot
get over the long delay in his moving the Court for any relief. At the relevant
time, the Government Servant’s cases were heard by the State Administrative
Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Under Section
21 of the Act, limitation of one year has been prescribed for moving the
Tribunal regarding any service grievance of a State Government servant. The
Tribunal was abolished only in the year 2005. Therefore, the petitioner having
miserably failed to move the appropriate forum on time and by merely sending a
representation, cannot get over the limitation.
6. In any event , the Courts will grant relief only to those who are
vigilant and by not sending petitions in time, the petitioner cannot escape from
the limitation. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently,
connected M.P. is closed. No costs.
ssm
copy to:-
1.The District Collector,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
2.The Tahsildar,
Vadipatti Taluk (Madurai North)
Madurai District.