K. MEGANATHAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 02.05.2012, whereunder, the representation dated 30.03.2011 of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the representation cannot be entertained since he had already retired from service and also a direction to the third respondent to extend the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.329, Home (Cts.V) Department dated 23.04.2009 (hereinafter referred to as "the Memo"), to the petitioner.

(2.) The indisputable facts, in brief, are that the petitioner joined the Judicial Subordinate Service as Junior Assistant with the City Civil Court at Madras on 19.02.1983. He was promoted from time to time. He was working as Assistant (Selection Grade) at the relevant point of time when the first respondent issued the Memo, adopting the Justice Shetty Commission's recommendations for grant of 3 grades of Bench Clerks from Courts of Civil JudgesJunior Division, Civil Judges-Senior Division and Courts of District Judges respectively. Under the Memo, the post of Assistants had been upgraded.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the said Memo has been implemented in other District Courts and Mofussil Courts, except in the case of Non-Judicial Staff rendering service at the City Civil Court, Chennai. The petitioner submitted a representation on 30.03.2011 for grant of the benefit to him on the afore-stated grounds. Since no action was taken on his representation, the petitioner preferred a writ petition, being W.P. No.13816 of 2011 (K.Meganathan vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others).