Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2011 (5) TMI 995

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d the common order dated 19.1.1998 of the learned single Judge given out in two Writ Petitions bearing Nos. 9110 4318/97. 4. In order to explain the controversy with clarity, it may be essential to state that the appellant Smt. S. Thilagavathy who had joined as an Orgnizer -cum- Tailoring Instructor in Grade I on 27.1.1986 in the Labour Welfare Board, Government of Tamil Nadu, challenged her transfer order from Trichy to Kovilpatti dated 16.6.1993, by filing a suit bearing O.S.No. 1460/93 before the District Munsif, Trichy. The learned District Munsif was pleased to grant interim injunction in favour of the appellant against the transfer order. However, the suit was finally dismissed, by the District Munsif vide judgment and order date .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... awal of this writ petition, the appellant no doubt was reinstated, but it is her case that she was reinstated not on grade I post to which she was appointed and was holding prior to her discharge but on grade II post although she was entitled to be restored to her original post of grade I on which she had been appointed, and she could not have been reinstated on a lower grade II post. It is her further case that in view of the dire necessity or pressing need of her livelihood, she was compelled to join on a lower grade II post although she should have been reinstated on grade I post. But she continued making representations which did not meet with any response from the authorities concerned. She, therefore, filed another writ petition No.43 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as entitled to be reinstated on grade I post on the ground that the appellant was unable to produce any record containing such assurance although the respondent-Board by its affidavit filed through its Secretary had denied having given any assurance or promise to the appellant. The learned single Judge also took notice of the fact that after her reinstatement on grade II post, the appellant had remained silent for well over a period of three years and only after a lapse of three years in the year 1997, she filed a writ petition alleging that there was an assurance from the respondent-Board to reinstate her on grade I post. The learned single Judge inferred that this plea of the appellant was purely an afterthought with no factual basis and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the aforesaid reason assigned by the learned single Judge as the appellant had already given up her contest before the learned single Judge against the order of her transfer and hence it had rightly not been allowed to be challenged by the Division Bench. As we agree with the view of the Division Bench that the appellant could not have been allowed to prefer a writ appeal against the order which was passed with her consent as she had given up her challenge before the single Judge against the order of her transfer, we see no reason to interfere with this part of the order of the learned single Judge passed in the appeal arising out of writ petition No. 9110/97. 12. However, we have noticed that the learned Judges of the Division Bench hav .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... writ petition challenging that her reinstatement on grade II post was illegal and arbitrary, yet it was necessary for the Division Bench to expressly state whether the appeal arising out of writ petition No.4318/97 was rejected. 14. However, since the learned Judges of the Division Bench have not passed any order in the writ appeal dealing with this plea of the appellant arising out of writ petition No. 4318/97, we leave it open to the appellant to approach the Division Bench by way of a review petition pointing out the error apparent on the face of the record to the effect that her appeal directed against the order in writ petition No.4318/97 has not been dealt with at all and has been dismissed without indicating any reason whatsoever .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates