Madras High Court quashes government order transferring Municipal Administration official

Madras High Court quashes government order transferring Municipal Administration official

Senior advocate P Wilson, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that Natarajan joined the Tamil Nadu municipal engineering services in 1983 and has rendered 35 years of unblemished services. 

Published: 24th December 2020 02:47 AM 

By Express News Service

CHENNAI: Madras High Court has quashed the transfer of Chief Engineer, Commissionerate of Municipal Administration, and observed that the state government has shown ‘extraordinary favour on extraneous consideration’ to a Principal Chief Engineer of Chennai corporation by appointing him as Chief Engineer and extending his tenure thrice.

The issue pertains to a plea moved by N Natarajan, Chief Engineer, Commissionerate of Municipal Administration, challenging his transfer to the post of Chief Engineer in the office of Commissioner, Chennai Corporation. 

​He was replaced by Pugazhendi, a Principal Chief Engineer in the Chennai Corporation, by extending his services.

Senior advocate P Wilson, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that Natarajan joined the Tamil Nadu municipal engineering services in 1983 and has rendered 35 years of unblemished services. 

On the other hand, Pugazhendi, was due to retire as Principal Chief Engineer in Chennai Corporation on June 30, 2016. 

But his services were extended thrice on the grounds that he was required to oversee projects worth Rs 12,000 crore, the advocate said.

However, Advocate General Vijay Narayan said it was a usual practice for the government to extend the services of its officers in public interest, especially, when an officer-in-charge was in the midst of overseeing large projects and their execution.

Justice V Parthiban, refusing to accept the contentions moved by the State, in his observation said, “...What is so special about the officer that he is kept at the helm for more than four years under the guise of execution of civil works. It only raises more questions than answers...” 

He also held that the court was constrained to hold that the extraordinary favour shown to the officer, who got service extensions continuously for the fifth year, appeared to be on extraneous consideration.