D.Venkatesan v. Veera Ragava Rao

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28-02-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH CONT P No. 1722 of 2022 AND REV.APLW NO. 88 of 2025 and REV.APLW NO. 89 of 2025 Cont.P.No.1722 of 2022 D.Venkatesan 2/86, A Kurumbatheru Village, Kandhikuppam Post, Krishnagiri Taluk and District. Petitioner(s) Vs Veera Ragava Rao The Director of Employment and Training, Gunidy, Chennai - 600 032. Contemnor(s) REV.APLW NO. 88 of 2025 D.Venkatesan S/o.P.Duraisamy, 2/86 Kurumbatheru Village, Kandhikuppam Post, Krishnagiri Taluk And District 635108 Petitioner(s) Vs

¶1The Director Of Employment And Training Guindy, Chennai 600032.

2.The Regional Joint Director (employment) Office Coimbatore Government ITI Complex, Thudiyalur, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore 641029, (now The Regional Joint Director (employment), The Regional Joint Director (employment) Office, Salem.

3.The District Employment Officer, Office Of The District Employment Krishnagiri, (now The District Employment Officer, District Employment And Career Guidance Centre, Krishnagiri) Respondent(s) REV.APLW NO. 89 of 2025

¶1The Director of Employment and Training and Training Guindy, Chennai - 32

2.The Regional Joint Director (Employment), Office Coimbatore Government ITI Complex, Thudiyalur, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore - 641 029 (Now the Regional Joint Director(Employment), The Regional Joint Director(Employment Office, Salem).

3.The District Employment Officer, Office of the District Employment Krishnagiri (Now the District Employment officer District Employment and Career Guidance Centre, Krishnagiri) Petitioner(s) Vs D. Venkatesan, S/o. P. Duraisamy, 2/86, Kurumbatheru Village, Kandhikuppam Post, Krishnagiri Taluk and District - 635108 Respondent(s) PRAYER in

Cont.P.No.1722

of 2022

Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, to Punish The Respondent For His Willful Disobedience Of The Order Dated

01.02.2022 Passed By This Hon'ble Court In W.P.No.27131 Of 2015.

PRAYER in

REV.APLW.No.88 of 2025

Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of C.P.C., to review the order dated 01.02.2022 passed in WP.No. 27131 of 2015. PRAYER in

REV.APLW.No.89 of 2025

Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of C.P.C., to review the orders passed in WP.27131 of 2015 and MP.No.1 of 2015 dated 01.02.2022. CONT P No. 1722 of 2022 &Rev.Aplw.No.88 of 2025 For Petitioner(s) : Mr.M.Venkadesh Kumar For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Neelakandan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mrs.V.Yamunadevi Special Government Pleader Rev.Aplw.No.89 of 2025 For Petitioner(s) : Mr.R.Neelakandan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mrs.V.Yamunadevi Special Government Pleader For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Venkadesh Kumar COMMON ORDER For brevity, the petitioner in Rev.Aplw.No.88 of 2025 is referred to as 'employee' and the respondents therein are referred to as 'contemnor/respondents'.

¶2When the employee was terminated from his services on 24.08.2015, he had challenged the same before this Court through W.P.No.27131 of 2015. Earlier, he had also filed another Writ Petition in W.P.No.3328 of 2015, seeking for regularization of his services in terms of G.O.(Ms).No.151 dated

16.10.2008. By a common order dated 01.02.2022, both the Writ Petitions were disposed of by holding that the order of termination was in violation of the principles of natural justice and that the contemnors/respondents may consider his request for regularization. However, while the final order came to be passed, the original order of termination dated 24.08.2015 was not directed to be set aside by inadvertence. It is in view of this, the employee had filed a review application. The Government had also preferred a review, touching upon the inapplicability of G.O.(Ms).No.151 to the case of the employee.

¶3While passing final orders in the Writ Petition, challenging the order of punishment, I had specifically held that the order of termination was made, without any prior notice to the employee, which is in violation of principles of natural justice and hence, it cannot be legally sustainable. What ought to have been consequently held, is setting aside of the termination order, which was omitted.

¶4Accordingly, the proceedings order No.A1/5351/2015 dated

24.08.2015 is set aside. Consequently, the contemnors/respondents shall forthwith reinstate the employee back into service with all the eligible benefits.

¶5Insofar as the review application filed against W.P.No.3328 of 2015, wherein the petitioner had sought for regularization of his services is concerned, the petitioner is granted liberty to make a fresh representation, seeking for regularization of his services and on receipt of the same, the contemnors/respondents shall consider it on its own merits, under the relevant Government orders applicable and pass necessary orders, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the representation.

¶6Since the original orders passed in the Writ Petitions have now been modified, the alleged disobedience in the Contempt Petition does not require consideration.

¶7Accordingly, the contempt petition and the review applications stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 28-02-2025 (3/3) Anu Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes M.S.RAMESHoJ. Anu CONToPoNo.o1722oofo 2022 AND REV.APLWoNO.o88oofo 2025o andoREV.APLWoNO.o89o ofo2025 28-02-2025