A.R. Balakrishnan vs The District Collector

M. Venugopal, J.—Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. T.S. Mohammed Mohideen, Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents.

According to the Petitioner, he was originally appointed as a Karnam/Headman in Ariyanatham Village in the year 1960. He was working continuously for about 20 years in the Village. The Tamil Nadu Government had decided to abolish the post of Karnam/Headman and passed Tamil Nadu Ordinance 10 of 1980 and accordingly the said post was abolished.

Consequent upon the abolition of the post of part-time Village Level Officers, there was a representation from the Village Level Officers for absorbing them against suitable posts for their sustenance. After due consideration of the grievance of the part time Village Level Officers, the Government had issued G.O. Ms.No.960, Rural Development Department, dated 28.11.1990, by which the Government had decided to absorb the erstwhile part time Village Level Officers as Panchayat Assistants in various Panchayats.

In pursuance of the abovesaid G.O., the Petitioner was appointed as a Panchayat Assistant in Ariyur Village Panchayat, Madurai District, on 31.12.1990 since then he was continuously working in the said capacity to the utmost satisfaction of his Superior without any complaint whatsoever.

It comes to be known that on 10.09.1997, the Additional Block Development Officer, Madurai West Panchayat Union, transferred the Petitioner and posted him in the office of the 3rd Respondent Panchayat. Also, he was placed under suspension by the then Block Development Officer, Madurai West, through his proceedings dated 22.01.1998. The reason for placing him under suspension was that he had not submitted the Expenditure Account in time. Further, he had submitted his Explanation stating that he had submitted the Accounts in time, but the President of the Village Panchayat of Podhumbu had not signed the same and hence there was a delay for which he should not be held responsible. Subsequently, the said suspension order was revoked by the 1st Respondent vide order dated 26.11.1999. He was directed to take charge as Panchayat Assistant at Podhumbu. Moreover, he was not allowed to reinstate into service at the 3rd Respondent Panchayat by the erstwhile President who appointed one Pandi as Panchayat Assistant. As such, he was posted at Pooathkudi, Ambalathadi and Petchikulam Village Panchayats and he was allowed to join duty as there was no vacancy in the aforesaid villages.

The grievance of the Petitioner is that he had made several representations to the 1st Respondent, but it proved futile. As such, the 2nd Respondent passed an order in terms of the direction of the 1st Respondent/District Collector, Madurai, directing the 3rd Respondent to allow him to join duty etc. Even then, he was not permitted to join duty.

The Petitioner ultimately approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, in O.A. No.1427 of 2000 with the prayer to allow him to join duty as Panchayat Assistant in Podhumbu Village. During the pendency of the said Application before the Tribunal, he got superannuated on 31.05.2003 hence he approached the authorities concerned to issue relieving order so as to apply for the Pension Scheme for Karnam/Headman post which he already held for which he was directed to withdraw the case instituted before the Administrative Tribunal. Accordingly, he withdrew the same on 16.12.2013. Thereafter, the 3rd Respondent issued a Bona fide Certificate also.

The case of the Petitioner is that now he is receiving a pension of Rs.1,251/- per month for the Karnam/Headman post as he had already held. Under these circumstances, the Government of Tamil Nadu passed an order in G.O. Ms.No.117 dated 10.05.2000 directing the authorities concerned to disburse the arrears of salary for the period from 01.01.1996 to 31.08.2006 to the Panchayat Assistants who are all working in the said period including those who had attained the age of superannuation. Therefore, he is eligible to claim the said arrears of salary for the aforesaid period. Therefore, he approached the 2nd Respondent to issue the details of arrears given to him and in turn he had also issued the Certificate of arrears of salary by calculating that he is eligible for an amount of Rs.24,960/- for the aforesaid period.

The Petitioner enclosing the Certificate issued by the 2nd Respondent, addressed a representation on 24.12.2009 to the 3rd Respondent, requesting to sanction the arrears of salary. However, the 3rd Respondent was reluctant to receive the said representation and the same was returned. Again, he had sent a representation to the authorities concerned on 04.01.2010 requesting to sanction the arrears of salary and the same was not considered. Therefore, he filed W.P. No.1538 of 2010 praying for issuance of a direction to the Respondents to disburse the arrears of salary of Rs.24,960/- to him by considering his Representation dated 04.01.2010 and the said Writ Petition was disposed of on 28.11.2012 by directing the Respondents to consider and pass orders.

Although the Petitioner had approached the 3rd Respondent on number of occasions by intimating the order passed by this Court, till date, the 3rd Respondent has not taken steps to obey the order of this court and the resultant effect is that till date no order has been passed on his request and he has not been paid with his arrears of salary.

In the aforesaid background, the Petitioner sent a contempt notice to the 3rd Respondent through his Advocate on 04.12.2013 and even thereafter the Respondent had acted in a reluctant manner. This according to the Petitioner shows the adamant nature of the Respondent to neglect and disobey the order of this court.

Inasmuch as the time limit to file the Contempt Petition is only one year from the date of the contempt committed, he could not file the Contempt Petition. Also, due to old age and poverty, the delay in issue has occurred and the same is neither wilful nor wanton. Finally, the Petitioner has preferred the instant Writ Petition before this court.

In view of the fact that the Petitioner is seeking a relief from this court for passing an order by directing the 3rd Respondent to disburse the arrears of salary of Rs.24,960/- to be paid to him with 9% interest by considering his representations dated 04.01.2010 and 09.07.2013 within the time determined by this Court, this Court in the interest of justice, equity, fair play, good conscience and even as a matter of prudence directs the 3rd Respondent to seriously/earnestly look into the representation of the Petitioner with great care and caution and circumspection and to dispose of the same by passing a reasoned speaking order ascribing necessary reasons, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (of course after providing necessary opportunity to the Petitioner by adhering to the principles of natural justice).

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.