S PATTAMMAL Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as a Superintendent in the Government Dairy Farm at Madhavaram, which was originally a Government Department under the Commissioner for Milk Production. Subsequently, the Government formulated Tamil Nadu Dairy Development Corporation, in which the erstwhile Government servants were sent on deputation. THE petitioner worked under the Corporation. THEreafter, the Government took a policy decision to wind up the Corporation and to form a Co-operative Milk Producers' Federation, viz., Tamil Nadu Co-operative Milk Producers' Federation (TNCMPF). THE erstwhile Government servants and the newly recruited corporation employees were also sent to the Federation. It was, at that stage, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1921, Agriculture Department, dated 8.11.1983, terminating the lien of the Government servants and made them to get absorbed in the corporation/federation. It was, at this juncture, several employees, who are originally the Government servants, filed writ petitions before this Court being W.P.No.11943 of 1986 and other cases.

(2.) IN view of the constitution of the Tribunal, the writ petitions were sent to the Tribunal and re-numbered as Transfer Applications. The Tribunal decided the matter in favour of the employees on the ground that a Government servant cannot be forced to snap his lien with the Government without his consent. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent-State filed an appeal before the Supreme Court and the matters were dealt with by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.1387 to 1395 of 1993. The arguments raised in the present writ petition were also advanced before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court allowed the State appeal. The following passages found in the said judgment of the Supreme Court may be usefully extracted below:-

(3.) THOUGH the learned counsel wanted to argue once again elaborately, this Court, as being bound by the directions of the Supreme Court in the identical matters, is not inclined to hear the arguments of the petitioner except by stating that the petitioner's case is not different from the persons, who are covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court. It is also admitted that the petitioner is receiving pension as a Government servant, though at a reduced rate because of the limited service that has been counted while he was in Government service.