BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10/10/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.5781 of 2008 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2008 P.Maragathamani ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Executive Director, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, High Pressure Boiler Plant, Tiruchirapalli 620 014. 2.The Deputy Manager, HR / Valves & M & S, Human Resource Management, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, High Pressure Boilder Plant, Tiruchirappalli 620 014. ... Respondents Prayer Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings in Ref.No.BP:07:57:MISC, dated 09.06.2008 on the file of the 2nd respondent quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service in view of the fact that the community certificate issued to the petitioner dated 25.07.1972 is valid one and not cancelled by any authority as per the judgment of this court passed in W.P.No.14486 of 1999 dated 04.03.2008. !For Petitioner ... Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramaniam ^For Respondents... Mr.K.Jayaraman for R1 and R2 :ORDER
The petitioner was employed as an Assistant in the respondent/BHEL at
Tiruchirapalli. His services were terminated by an order dated 26.09.1998 on the
ground that he has produced a false community certificate saying that he belongs
to Kattu Naicken Community.
2.Aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent / BHEL, the petitioner
filed a Writ petition before this Court in W.P.(MD)No.20765 of 1999, challenging
the said order. The matter was grouped together along with similarly placed
employees and ultimately, the issue was referred to a Full Bench. The Full
Bench by order dated 07.02.2006 disposed of all the Writ petitions including
that of the petitioners. While dismissing all the Writ petitions, the Full Bench
directed that the matters of community certificate, Civil Court has got no
jurisdiction and they should not entertain any such suit. Subsequent to the
dismissal of the Writ petition, the petitioner once again filed another Writ
petition being W.P.(MD)No.14486 of 1999 challenging an order dated 26.07.1999,
wherein, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchirapalli declined to grant the
community certificate. The said Writ petition was heard along with the another
Writ petition by a Division Bench.
3.By a common order dated 04.03.2008, the Division Bench disposed of both
the Writ petitions and the Division Bench held that after the decision of the
Kumari Madhuri Patil reported in 1994 (6) SCC 241,the revenue authorities cannot
pass any orders and the matter will have to go before the District Level
Vigilance Committee set up by the Government in accordance with the judgment of
the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil case.
4.The Division Bench in paragraph 15 declared as follows:
“15.Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, we are convinced that the impugned
orders of the 1st respondent even dated 26.07.1999 are liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, we pass the following order:
(i)The impugned orders are set aside and the matters are remitted back to
the State Level Scrutiny Committee to scrutinise the geniuses of the community
certificates issued to the petitioners dated 25.07.1972 and 04.04.1978 whether
they belong to Hindu Kattu Naicken Community.
(ii)The Committee shall pass appropriate orders within a period of twelve
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, as the matters are pending
for decades together and for one another reason that not only the right of the
petitioners is involved since they already reached the age of superannuation,
but also to that of their children to avail the benefits conferred on them
constitutionally in the field of education as well as employment.
(iii)The State Level Scrutiny Committee shall do the above exercise after
giving fair and reasonable opportunity to both the petitioners and shall
strictly adhere to the time limit prescribed and report compliance of the same
to this court after 12 weeks.
(iv)The Writ petitions are allowed with the above directions. No costs.”
5.A perusal of the operative portion of the Division Bench does not show
that there was a direction to restore the petitioner to service pending enquiry
by the State Level Scrutiny Committee, wherein, the petitioner’s community
certificate question is still pending for consideration. But, taking advantage
of the judgment made by the Division Bench dated 04.03.2008 the petitioner sent
a representation to the respondent and requested them to restore him to service.
In response to her request, the respondent / BHEL by the impugned order dated
04.06.2008 informed the petitioner that the matter relating to community
certificate had been delegated to the State Level Scrutiny Committee and
therefore, in the absence of any direction for restoration, the judgment of the
Full Bench rendered in the petitioner’s case will prevail. Aggrieved by the
order, the petitioner has filed the present Writ petition as noted already.
6.Notice of motion was ordered on 30.06.2008 in the Writ petition.
Pending the Writ petition, no interim relief was granted. On notice from this
Court, the respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 01.08.2011. In the
counter affidavit it is stated that the right of the management to take
disciplinary action was not restricted and ultimately there is no decision to
show that the dismissal order passed by the management was set aside by any
Court. Even if the Division Bench judgment of which the petitioner wants to
take advantage, it had only relegated the issue to the State Level Scrutiny
Committee. The stand taken by the respondent cannot be found fault with. The
petitioner cannot presume that the Division Bench had made a direction to
restore him to service. If the petitioner had any doubt, he should have made
appropriate clarification petition before the Division Bench. In the absence of
any positive direction issued by the Division Bench, there is nothing illegal
about the respondent management in relying upon the Full Bench judgment rendered
in the case of the petitioner himself, wherein, the Full Bench did not interfere
with the order passed by the competent authority namely, the employers of the
respective employees.
7.Hence, there is no case made out to interfere with the impugned order.
The Writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P.is closed.
However, if ultimately the petitioner succeeds before the State Level Scrutiny
Committee and gets a final order, he can workout his remedy in the manner known
to law. No costs.
nbj
To
1.The Executive Director,
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited,
High Pressure Boiler Plant,
Tiruchirapalli 620 014.
2.The Deputy Manager,
HR / Valves & M & S,
Human Resource Management,
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited,
High Pressure Boilder Plant,
Tiruchirappalli 620 014.