R. VEDAGIRI Vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC HEALTH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER - R. Vedagiri, who has been appointed on compassionate ground on 03.04.1986 and terminated on 04.08.2008, after 22 years of service, filed the present writ petition, challenging the validity of the order of termination dated 04.08.2008 issued by the Deputy Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Institute of P Public Health, Poonamallee, Chennai in Na.Ka. No. 6199/PA -1/85.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed temporarily as Mazdoor in the Institute of Public Health, Poonamallee under the power delegated in G.O. Ms. No. 560 Labour and Employment Department dated 03.08.1977 and Rule 10(a)(i) of the General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services by order dated 03.04.1986. His father - V. Rangan, who was serving as Mazdoor died on 16.06.1985. In view of the sudden death of his father, the petitioner applied for job on compassionate ground by making a representation dated 07.08.1985. Subsequently, the appointing authority, after thorough verification and scrutiny of the certificates, more particularly, considering the indigenous circumstances faced by the petitioner and his family, keeping in mind that his family was also consisting of 10 members and the petitioner being an elder one, satisfied with the particulars furnished by him and appointed him as a temporary Mazdoor on 03.04.1986. Thereafter, his services were regularised with effect from 04.04.1986. While the petitioner was working without any blemish and to the satisfaction of his superiors, the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai called for the report from the Deputy Director with respect to irregular appointment of Mazdoors on compassionate grounds. In response thereto, the respondent also sent a report to the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai. More particularly, the respondent, in his recommendation vide letter in R. No. 4044/E1/91 dated 24.08.1997, made a request to the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine to take necessary action to obtain ratification of the Government in respect of the appointment of the petitioner. The said request was also sent along with the inspection report. Therefore, it goes without saying that the petitioner was appointed as Mazdoor at Institute of Public Health and Preventive Medicine on 03.04.1986 as per G.O. Ms. No. 560 Labour and Employment Department dated 03.08.1977 and Rule 10(a)(i) of the General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services, wherein it is mentioned that the dependant of the Government servant died in harness leaving his family in indigenous circumstances is also eligible to avail the concession granted in G.O. Ms. No. 560 Labour and Employment Department dated 03.08.1977 even when there is already an earning member in the family. On this basis, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on the date when the petitioner was appointed on 03.04.1986 under Rule 10(a)(i) of the General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services, his appointment was protected by G.O. Ms. No. 560 Labour and Employment Department dated 03.08.1977.

(3.) ADDING further, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when there is no proper enquiry conducted, the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to submit his case before the enquiry officer. Mere issuance of show cause notice and submitting a reply will not absolve the respondent from holding the proper enquiry. As a matter of fact, in the present case, after issuance of the show cause notice dated 11.07.2008, till date, no enquiry has been conducted. Therefore, the impugned order, terminating the petitioner after allowing him to work for 22 long years is not only bad in law but also in violation of principles of natural justice and also shocks the conscience of the Court. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also rely on the order of this Court in W.P. No. 29754 of 2008 dated 26.02.2014 and further submit that in the event of ordering reinstatement in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner would not claim backwages for the period he was unemployed.