While passing the interim order staying, a November 9 order of the State PWD asking the Muthamizh Peravai Charitable Trust to vacate its premises at R.A.Puram in Chennai and hand over the land and building to the department within a month, Justice N.Paul Vasanthakumar had posed the question to the Advocate General, “Regimes may change but government is the same. What was the necessity for the government to take back with a hand what was given by another hand? Why this sudden decision? I stay this order. If need be, you can file counter affidavit in four weeks!”
This observation of the Judge is precisely is the commentary on the ‘performance’ of the Jayalalitha regime during the last six months since, it took office on May 16; to be more accurate even before the swearing-in ceremony, right from the late evening of May 13 when the results of the Assembly elections were trickling-in heading for majority for the ADMK. With the shifting of the seat of power, the Secretariat and the Assembly from the Government Omandurar Estate back to St. George Fort. And in the first Cabinet meeting held in the evening after the swearing-in ceremony on May 16, the decision of suspending the implementation of Samacheer Kalvi Scheme, introduced by the DMK government after exhaustive studies and deliberations, was taken. So, even while assuming office and right from the day, the functioning of the regime revolved on ‘undoing whatever was done by the previous DMK rule’ and ‘negating all positive measures of the previous rule’ as per Tamil saying ‘Kjš nfhzš K‰¿Y« nfhzš’ (First perversion is total perversion).
Granting the interim relief to the Muthamizh Peravai Charitable Trust represented by its secretary Vazhuvoor Ravi, the judge posted the matter after four weeks for further hearing. The matter relates to a total of six grounds of land allotted to the Peravai in two instalments – in June and August 2010.
The Peravai, which exists since 1976 but was registered in 1999, requested the DMK rule for land to build an auditorium, music library and other research facilities for promotion of music, dance and fine arts. On the allotted land near Andhra Mahila Sabha in Adyar, a structure at an outlay of Rs 4 crore was built.
The auditorium is already in use, and it has been booked for cultural events and dance programmes till 2012-end.While so, the executive engineer of PWD issued a notice on November 9, directing the Peravai to vacate the premises and hand over vacant possession within 30 days.
The mala fide intention of the Jaya regime is obvious from the fact that adjacent to the site, there are five grounds of land allotted for constructing manimandapam for thespian Sivaji Ganesan, land allotted by ADMK regime to Kunnakudi Vaidyanathan who ‘invented’ a raga in Jayalalitha’s name and the land assigned for the purpose of development of Bharathanatyam – all remaining unused and vacant.
It is because of such mala fide intentions of Jayalalitha besides illegality and impropriety, that the courts had to interfere and order stay for her moves, not just one but five times, force a self-imposed stay and quash a move within six months of her rule.
On her first misadventure with Samacheer Kalvi, she made it a prestige issue of her regime by tossing the fate of 1.25 crore school going children between High Court and Supreme Court, spoiling 100 worthy days of their studies, agonizing 2.5 crore parents of the children and confusing over 15,000 teachers; and above all frittering away hundreds of crores of rupees on printing textbooks in old syllabus in Sivakasi and Hyderabad, exhorbitant legal fees paid for engaging senior counsels, court expenses, air fare for officials, minister and lawyers etc.,
In fact democratic norms make it mandatory for her to step down for this authoritarian misadventure, for which she has not taken the people’s mandate. Neither abolition of Samacheer Kalvi nor shifting of New Assembly and Secretariat complex were parts of ADMK election manifesto or her election campaign. That was the reason for the alliance parties of the ADMK to atleast raise the feeble voice against these moves. In effect by these two most unpopular moves, Jayalalitha betrayed the people who voted for and against her, her alliance parties and in fact her own party functionaries and cadre, obviously because the ADMK rank and file remained nonplussed all through, helplessly watching the developments and incurring the wrath of neighbours and their own family members too, inasmuch as every household had one or two school-going children.
It will go on record and down in history that the ADMK, nay, Jayalalitha regime was backed by private schools which have commercialized education and looting in the name of tuition fees, and opposed by educationists and parents, the people in the court litigation and outside. It is very obvious that Jayalalitha blatantly misused power in favour of private schools and against common people. The regime turned a blind eye to the protests of parents against private schools fleecing them for school fees and only after the High Court order prescribing deadline named a judge to head the committee.
The judges of the High Court and Supreme Court made very harsh remarks against the ADMK regime.
Encouraged and emboldened by the by and large indifferent attitude of political parties, social groups and the media to her move to abandon the New Secretariat complex as it was a problem for Kalaignar and the DMK, Jayalalitha dared to touch the much acclaimed Anna Centenary Library (ACL), which proved to be disturbing a honeycomb. The Madras High Court on Nov.3 stayed her move to convert the ACL built during DMK rule, into a Super Speciality Pediatric Hospital on two PILs. The first Bench comprising of Chief Justice M.Y.Eqbal and Justice T.S.Sivagnanam took exception to the move and asked the government why it wanted to shift the library which is equipped with modern facilities and cryptically remarked if the government was so interested in the hospital it could even construct on the Marina beach. This move was also politically motivated and mala fide. All political parties, social organizations, writers, students and the public have voiced their strong protest and have started agitations. That the announcement of converting ACL as well as the New Secretariat complex into Super Speciality Hospitals was only a ruse for abandoning landmarks of Chennai created by Kalaignar, is evident from the fact that Jayalalitha has closed down the Super Speciality Hosptial in Salem, constructed, inaugurated and functioning during the DMK rule. The ADMK regime unleashed brutal police lathi charge on agitators demanding reopening of the hospital.
November 11 and 18 turned unforgettable days for the Jaya regime, inasmuch as on the first day, not one or two, but three important decisions of the government suffered adverse orders, benefitting about 12,620 government employees.
While the bench of Justice K Suguna stayed the two separate government orders to sack 12,618 Makkal Nala Paniyalargal (village welfare workers) and to remove 11 Assistant Public Relations Officers (APROs) appointed by the previous DMK government, a Division Bench quashed the detention of ‘Pottu’ Suresh under the Goondas Act.
The post of Makkal Nala Paniyalargal was first created by the DMK government in 1989. As per the scheme, a district-level committee headed by the district collector will select a male and female candidate each for every panchayat, in order to oversee implementation of welfare schemes. In 1991 and in 2001, and now, every time the ADMK came to power, the posts were disbanded, only to be re-created by the DMK rule on its return. This time a total of 12,618 workers lost their jobs after the November 8 order disbanding the posts.
On Nov.11, Justice Suguna stayed the operation of the order and said it would be applicable to workers affiliated to the Chennai-based Tamil Nadu Makkal Nala Paniyalargal Munnetra Sangam and the Dindigul District Makkal Nala Paniyalargal Sangam.
During arguments, advocate R.Vaigai said the Apex Court had held repeatedly that government employees should not be reduced to be pawns in the political chess.
TNMNPMS General Secretary M.Palani said his association had a membership of 13,000. There was every need for their services for better implementation of schemes, particularly the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. The present staff strength in any panchayat union and village panchayat was not sufficient to cope with the maintenance of basic amenities. The disbandment of all the posts of Makkal Nala Paniyalargal through an order on November 8 was an “arbitrary exercise of power which is coupled with political bias.” The reasoning in the impugned order -- that there was enough staff to look after the work being done by the Staff for People's Welfare -- was totally false. The communications and proceedings repeatedly issued by the government would establish that the petitioners' services were essential. There was no plausible reason to disband the post immediately as there was already a sanction accorded up to May 31, 2012 for continuance of the association members. Considering the totality of the circumstances and the need for the services of the workers, the government had passed a G.O. on June 1, 2009 bringing them under a special time scale of pay of Rs.2,500-5,000 plus grade pay of Rs.500.
In her order, Justice Suguna noted that the appointments were valid up to May 31, 2012. In view of this, there would be an order of interim stay only in respect of the members of the petitioners' associations. A while later, the same judge stayed the operation of another controversial government order sacking 11 APROs, who were appointed by relaxing rules relating to educational qualification and experience. Justice Suguna pointed out that the posts held by the incumbent APROs had not been filled up, and hence allowing the 10 APROs in their present positions would not be difficult.
Despite the court order, the MNPs were not allowed to report for duty which amounted to contempt of court. On Nov.21, it was brought to the notice of the court which ordered the government to allow them report for duty and file a reply on compliance of the order the next day on Nov.22. But the Jaya regime did not comply and preferred an appeal to the Bench challenging the single judge order. However, the Bench consists of Chief Justice Iqbal and Justice Sivagnanam on Nov.23 dismissed the appeal of the government passing strictures against the ADMK regime. They said in their order that dismissing MNPs with the change of regime was illegal and condemnable. Tracing the history of dismissals and reinstatement since 1991 by the ADMK regime and DMK rule respectively, the judges said it look like playing football and the MNPs are not footballs to play around. According to the Supreme Court order once a government employee is appointed fixing a salary to remove him is illegal. “We take strong objections to it. Passing different orders with the change of rules is regrettable, painful and condemnable” judges said.
Government and State enterprises are considered ‘model employers’ for private entrepreneurs. The State and Central governments have Labour ‘Welfare’ departments for ensuring and enforcing Labour laws for safeguarding the interests of workers their rights and benefits of the private sector enterprises through tripartite conciliations and arbitrations. That being the legal and constitutional obligation of the government, it can’t afford to treat its own employees so casually and whimsically like Jayalalitha regime as in the case of MNPs and APROs.
In this context it is pertinent to note a recent judgement of the Madras High Court Bench in Madurai.
Even cooperative societies cannot wriggle out of their obligation to grant permanent status to temporary employees who had served the organisation for 480 days within 24 calendar months as stipulated under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, the Madras High Court Bench has held.
Justice K. Chandru passed the ruling while dismissing a writ petition filed by the General Manager of Madurai District Cooperative Milk Producers' Union (MDCMPU) in 2006, challenging an order passed by the Inspector of Factories on August 30, 2004, to grant permanent status to 22 employees. The petitioner had contended that the 1981-Act would not be applicable to the cooperative society.
Rejecting the contention, the judge imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000 on MDCMPU to be payable to the employees' counsel towards legal costs.
The judge said that the Union had halted the grant of permanent status as well as attendant benefits arising out of such status to the 22 employees for over a period of five years by obtaining an interim stay of the Inspector's order at the time of admission of the writ petition.
The judge pointed out that the Supreme Court in a case decided in 2008 had held that no management could question grant of permanent status to temporary workmen as the Constitutional validity of the 1981 Act had been upheld as early as in 1990 itself.
The apex court had also said that conferment of permanent status cannot be labelled as a violation of Articles 14 (Right to equality before law and equal protection of laws) and 16 (Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment) of the Constitution. “The other contention that the workmen were not engaged throughout the year is irrelevant. For the purpose of calculating 480 days, the Act only talks of 480 days within 24 calendar months. The contract need not spread over to two full calendar years. It will be suffice if the workman completes 480 actual days within 24 calendar months even if there was discontinuance,” Justice Chandru clarified.
On the last contention of MDCMPU that the 22 employees were employed in the place of permanent workers only during exigencies, the judge said that inclusion of ‘Badli (substitute) worker' in the definition of workmen by way of an amendment to the Act in 2000 would make it clear that even those who do not work throughout the year were eligible to claim permanent status.
On November 11, while the High Court stayed the government’s move to retrieve the land allotted by Kalaignar to Muthamizh Peravai in another case, in order to avoid yet another stay and loss of face for the Jaya regime, the government itself self-imposed a stay for a mala fide move it made through the Chennai District Collector. The controversy surrounding the 114-odd grounds (about 9.3 acres) of prime land on Cathedral Road adjacent to Anna Flyover, took centre stage in October when DMK President Kalaignar charged that the District Collector in-charge surrendered its ownership right to the Agri- Horticultural Society of a person close to the ruling clique, owing to extraneous political consideration. The prime property, worth about Rs.500 crore, is located opposite to the Semmozhi Poonga, a 20-acre botanical garden. A petition was filed against the move of the ADMK regime advocate Y.Bhuvanesh Kumar.
Realising that the case will turn against the regime, the State government itself put on hold the Collector’s ruling.
A submission to this effect was made before the first bench of the Madras high court comprising Chief Justice M Y Eqbal and Justice TS Sivagnanam by advocate-general A Navaneethakrishnan when a public interest writ petition filed by Y Bhuvanesh Kumar challenging the collector’s order came up for hearing on Nov.18.
After several rounds of litigation following a government decision in 1989 to take over the land, the HC in March 2010 asked the authorities to issue a show-cause notice and give the society reasonable opportunity to prove its claim over the property. However, though notices were issued in September and October 2010 there was no progress on the issue. On December 8, 2010, the then DMK government issued another notice to take possession of the property. After the advent of ADMK regime, on August 22, 2011, the collector ruled that the title of the land belonged to the society.
P Wilson, the petitioner’s counsel, said grave irregularities had taken place in handing over the land to the society and that the HC order had been deliberately misinterpreted by authorities. The collector’s order was passed when Chennai district did not have a regular district collector, he said.
The advocate-general then furnished an order passed by the principal secretary and commissioner of land administration, dated November 1, 2011, stating that the collector’s order had been stayed and that the government had decided to review it. The order said the collector had passed the ruling though there was no documentary evidence to establish that the society had the title over the land. The society, on its part, has already filed a petition challenging the principal secretary’s order.
Recording this development, the first bench then said: “When the order dated November 1 itself has become a subject matter of a writ petition, the present PIL in our view has become infructuous. It is accordingly dismissed.”
This is a peculiar case. Usually government move through courts also for retrieving government lands from illegal possession. On the contrary here a member of the public moved the court for retrieving land from a private party, to whom the government itself conferred illegal ownership.
Court cases against moves of any government and stay orders are not uncommon. But it is rarest of the rare for a government to get its moves ab initio stayed by the courts and invalidated. The ADMK regime led by Jayalalitha has acquired the distinction, nay notoriety, of so many of its moves stayed and invalidated by courts within a few months of assuming power! A ‘feat’ indeed’!
No comments:
Post a Comment