Case Note & Summary
The case involved a writ appeal filed by the Government of Tamil Nadu against a decision made in WP.No.30594 of 2017. The appellants contended that the respondent, S. Murugan, was at fault for not undergoing training. However, the Division Bench had previously ruled that the delay was due to administrative reasons on the part of the appellants, not the respondent. The court noted that the appellants failed to depute the writ petitioner for training, which led to the learned Single Judge granting relief and monetary benefits to the respondent. The Government had implemented the earlier judgment through G.O.(Rt).No.518, dated 23.11.2023. Ultimately, the present writ appeal was dismissed, affirming the earlier decision and closing the connected civil miscellaneous petition.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Writ Appeal - Fault in Training Deputation - Not applicable under Clause 15 of Letters Patent - The court found that the appellants were responsible for the delay in deputing the writ petitioner for training, leading to the dismissal of the writ appeal. The learned Single Judge's decision to grant relief and benefits to the respondent was upheld. Held that the appellants failed to fulfill their duty (Paras 6-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants were at fault for not deputing the writ petitioner for training.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the writ appeal, affirming the earlier decision of the learned Single Judge and closing the connected civil miscellaneous petition.
Law Points
- Writ Appeal
- Administrative Delay
- Training
- Monetary Benefits
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (08) 231
WA No. 3206 of 2023 and CMP No. 26198 of 2023
S.M. Subramaniam, Krishnaswamy Govindarajan
Mrs. Y. Kavitha, Mr. P. Rajendran
The Government of Tamil Nadu, The Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Revenue Administration, The Collector, Dharmapuri District
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ appeal against a government order regarding training deputation.
Remedy Sought
The appellants sought to set aside the order made in WP.No.30594 of 2017.
Filing Reason
The appellants claimed the respondent was at fault for not undergoing training.
Previous Decisions
The Division Bench had previously ruled that the appellants were at fault for the delay in training.
Issues
Fault in training deputation
Implementation of previous court order
Submissions/Arguments
The appellants argued that the respondent was at fault for not undergoing training.
The respondent contended that the delay was due to the appellants' administrative reasons.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the delay in training was due to the appellants' administrative shortcomings, not the respondent's fault.
Judgment Excerpts
A reading of the order under challenge would make it very clear that there is no fault on the part of the respondent/writ petitioner in not undergoing the training.
Therefore, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was right in granting the relief to the respondent/writ petitioner as well as consequential monetary and service benefits.
Procedural History
The writ appeal was filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to challenge the order dated 20.07.2021 made in WP.No.30594 of 2017.
