THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR W.P.No.25370 of 2022 G.Vijaya Kumar                          ..              Petitioner.    For Petitioner                           :         Mr.J.Umaid Gothi                                  For Respondents                            :       Mr.K.Sathish Kumar Standing Counsel In that view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed with the cost of Rs.5.000/-, which the petitioner shall pay to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, High Court Campus, Chennai within a period of thirty days and report compliance. For such compliance, post the matter after six weeks. 22.09.2022        

  •  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.09.2022

CORAM :

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

W.P.No.25370 of 2022

G.Vijaya Kumar                          ..              Petitioner

Vs.

  1. The Managing Director

Tamil Nadu State Marketing

Corporation Ltd. (TASMAC)

CMDA Tower, Egmore     Chennai – 600 008.

  1. The Senior Regional Manager Tamil Nadu State Marketing

Corporation Ltd. (TASMAC)     No.735, L.L.A.Building

Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

  1. The Regional Manager

Chennai (South District)

Tamil Nadu State Marketing

Corporation Ltd. (TASMAC)

B-4, Ambattur Industrial Estate

Chennai – 600 058.                          ..         Respondents

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of Mandamus to direct the third respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 23.08.2022.

For Petitioner                           :         Mr.J.Umaid Gothi

For Respondents                            :       Mr.K.Sathish Kumar

Standing Counsel

ORDER

The prayer sought for herein is for a writ of Mandamus to direct the third respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 23.08.2022.

  1. The petitioner was working with the respondents i.e., in TASMAC shop as Sales Assistant. He had been unauthorizedly absent according to the respondent TASMAC for eight years, but it is according to the petitioner counsel, it may not be eight years, it may be three years or more. Be that as it may, there has been a long absence on the part of the petitioner unauthorizedly.
  2. After long years of unauthorized absence, the petitioner seems to have given a representation to rejoin duty, which was not accepted or considered by the respondent TASMAC.
  3. Therefore, in order to consider such representation given after several years of unauthorized absence, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.16273 of 2013, which was disposed by a learned Judge of this Court by order dated 18.06.2013 directed the respondents to consider such representation and to pass orders. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the representation of the petitioner was considered and an enquiry in fact was conducted, ultimately, the respondent TASMAC passed an order on 08.08.2014, whereby, the petitioner was removed from service. As against the said order, no challenge has been made, no proceedings have been filed by the petitioner admittedly.
  4. Now after eight years, the petitioner on 23.08.2022 has given a representation to the respondent TASMAC to consider his plea because of his family circumstances, where the petitioner is struggling to meet both ends and therefore, he may be considered for reinstatement and in order to consider the said representation dated 23.08.2022, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
  5. Heard Mr.J.Umaid Gothi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Sathish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
  6. It is an admitted case on the part of the petitioner that, if noteight years, at least for some years the petitioner has unauthorizedly absent earlier, pursuant to which, the petitioner had to face disciplinary proceedings or even without any disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner could have been removed from service by the orders of the respondent TASMAC, in view of the unauthorized absence for long years. However, the petitioner had approached this Court seeking to consider his plea to reinstate and that was directed to be considered and it was considered and an enquiry was conducted and ultimately orders were passed by the respondent TASMAC on 08.08.2014 removing the

petitioner from service and that order also has become final, which was not challenged by the petitioner in any forum.

  1. Now after further eight years, the petitioner once again has given a representation on 23.08.2022 for consideration of his reinstatement and in order to consider such representation, the present writ petition has been filed.
  2. These factors clearly demonstrated the attitude of the

petitioner. If at all he wanted to lead a decent life and to save his family, he should have continuously worked with the respondent Corporation in the job he held already, however, he unauthorizedly absent for several years, even for that reason, the petitioner is not entitled to any such relief sought for herein. However, pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the first round of litigation, enquiry was conducted and he was removed from service by the orders passed by the respondent TASMAC dated 08.08.2014 and that was also not challenged and it has become final, now, after eight years of that order dated 08.08.2014, the present representation once again was submitted by the petitioner on 23.08.2022. Therefore, the question of considering such representation does not arise. Moreover, it is a gross misuse of process of law on the part of the petitioner by filing this kind of reckless writ petition after eight years of the removal order passed against the petitioner after due enquiry conducted by the respondent  TASMAC, of course pursuant to the orders passed by this Court and admittedly, the petitioner on earlier occasion had been unauthorizedly absence for more than three years, and eight years according to the respondent TASMAC. Hence, this Court feels that this writ petition not only deserves to be dismissed but also with costs.

  1. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed with

the cost of Rs.5.000/-, which the petitioner shall pay to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, High Court Campus, Chennai within a period of thirty days and report compliance. For such compliance, post the matter after six weeks.

22.09.2022         

Index:Yes/No drm/sgl

To

  1. The Managing Director

Tamil Nadu State Marketing

Corporation Ltd. (TASMAC)

CMDA Tower, Egmore     Chennai – 600 008.

  1. The Senior Regional Manager Tamil Nadu State Marketing

Corporation Ltd. (TASMAC)     No.735, L.L.A.Building

Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

  1. The Regional Manager

Chennai (South District)

Tamil Nadu State Marketing

Corporation Ltd. (TASMAC)     B-4, Ambattur Industrial Estate     Chennai – 600 058.

R.SURESH KUMAR,J.

(drm/sgl)

 

    

W.P.No.25370 of 2022

22.09.2022

You may also like...