Madras High Court Service Law Digest 2023

Madras High Court Restraints TANGEDCO Employees From Going On Strike, Says Essential Services Will Be Affected Case Title: A Saravanan v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 11 The Madras High Court has temporarily restrained the employees of the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO) from going on a strike on January 10 or on any future date. While allowing the petition filed by one J Elumalai, the bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy held that since electricity is an essential service, if the employees went on strike, it would affect the public at large. Thus, the court restrained the employees from going on a strike. Madras High Court Stays Order Cancelling Appointment Of 25 Aavin Employees Case Title: D Elumalai v. The Commissioner of Milk Production and others Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 13 The Madras High Court has stayed an order passed by the General Manager of Aavin cancelling the appointment of 25 employees. Aavin is a state government cooperative under Tamil Nadu Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. While giving an interim stay on the operation of the impugned order, Justice Abdul Quddhose said the petitions are prima facie maintainable as the petitioners have approached the court only on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioners contended that the order of cancellation of their appointment was arbitrary and illegal. The reason given by the authorities for cancellation of appointment is that the appointments were made in violation of the Special Rules. The petitioners, however, submitted that they were appointed after following due procedure and proper verification. Can't Deny Maternity Benefits On Technicalities, Woman Cannot Be Forced To Swing Between Motherhood And Employment: Madras High Court Case Title: Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Ltd and another v. B Rajeswari Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 15 While dismissing an appeal preferred by Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation against a single judge order directing the organization to pay maternity benefits to a temporary employee, the Madras High Court recently held that welfare legislation like the Maternity Benefits Act cannot be denied merely on the basis of technicalities. Highlighting the importance of maternity benefits for women, Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq went on to observe that a woman must not be forced to swing between motherhood and work like a pendulum and that even in Hindu mythology, women who sacrificed their lives for their families were considered at par with God. An Ineligible Candidate Is A "Stranger", Cannot Challenge Recruitment Procedure: Madras High Court Reiterates Case Title: Eswari v. Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 31 The Madras High Court recently reiterated that a candidate who is ineligible to participate in a recruitment process is a stranger to such process and cannot challenge the appointments made therein. Justice Abdul Quddhose thus dismissed the plea of a sanitation worker who had challenged the appointments of candidates as Junior Assistants in Coimbatore Corporation. 'People In Villages Also Must Get Services Of Specialists': Madras High Court Refuses To Interfere With Rural Posting Of PG Doctors Case Title: Dr Sri Hari Vignesh R v. State of Tamil Nadu and others Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 44 In a plea challenging the posting of non-service PG doctors in Urban Primary Health Centre (UPHC) and Additional Primary Health Centre (APHC), the Madras High Court refused to interfere with the decision of the Directorate of Public Health and Preventive Medicine and directed the doctors to report to duty in the Centres allotted to them. The main contention of the doctors was that the posting is not commensurate with the qualification and specialisation attained by them in the PG course. It was also argued that the health centres do not have the facilities to enable them perform their area of specialisation. Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that the 19 doctors, who were before the court, had opted for UPHC and APHC at the time of counselling and cannot be allowed to wriggle out by stating that they do not have the necessary facilities in those PHCs. Covid-19 Duty By Medical Students Pursuing Super Speciality Courses Can Be Set Off Against Compulsory Bond Service Period: Madras High Court Case Title: Dr. Jayakrishnan MP v. State of Tamil Nadu Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 45 In a relief to five doctors, the Madras High Court has held that the period of service rendered by them during Covid-19 can be adjusted towards the two years of compulsory bond service. Justice CV Karthikeyan held that the Government should extend an arm to the doctors as there was no...

Madras High Court Service Law Digest 2023

Upasana Sajeev

Tags