Madras High Court
WA(MD)/905/2022 of THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC LIBRA Vs M.VENKATAVEL PANDI on 5 October 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.10.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE M.D.SUMATHI
WA(MD) NO. 905 of 2022
{CNR: HCMD010624002022}
Case QR
&
C.M.P.(MD)No.7565 of 2022
1.The Director of Public Libraries,
Public Library Department,
No.737/1, Annasalai,
Chennai-600 002.
2.The District Library Officer (Additional Charge), Theni, Theni District.
3.C.R.Ravindran (Inspector of Libraries), The District Library Officer (Incharge), Madurai, Madurai District.
... Appellants / Respondents
Vs.
M.Venkatavel Pandi,
Grade II Librarian,
Branch Library,
Thirupparangundram,
Madurai District.
... Respondent / Writ Petitioner
Prayer :Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 20.01.2022 passed in W.P.(MD)No.10083 of 2015
and allow this writ appeal.
For Appellants
: Mrs.M.R.Priyanka Jothi
Government Advocate (Civil Side)
For Respondent : Mr.G.Karthik
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by G.R.Swaminathan, J.) The department is on appeal before us.
2. One Venkatavel Pandi was working in Bodinayakanoor Branch Library. A common transfer order dated 07.05.2015 was issued. Venkatavel Pandi was transferred to Thiruparankundram Branch Library, Madurai District.
3. The stand of the appellant / department is that the said Venkatavel Pandi without properly handing over charge to Balamurugan straight away joined the Thiruparankundram Branch Library. Hence, one more proceedings dated 12.08.2015 was issued directing Venkatavel Pandi to hand over charge to One Visuvsam. It is seen from the materials on record that the persons mentioned as replacement for Venkatavel Pandi in Bodinayakanoor Branch Library did not accept charge from Venkatavel Pandi. However, the department did not pay any salary to the writ petitioner for this intervening period. That necessitated filing of W.P.(MD)No.10083 of 2015. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition vide order dated 20.01.2022 in the following terms:- “9. The Auditing Officer report states that there are several discrepancies, which ought to be rectified. The report also enumerated the list of discrepancies. The petitioner’s case is one among such discrepancy. Under these circumstances the petitioner case ought to be analyzed.
10. As far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, he was directed to hand over the charge to one Balamurugan. When he refused to take over charge, the petitioner was directed to hand over the charge to Visvasam and the petitioner has handed over. But before getting relieving order the said Visvasam had refused to take charge. Left with no option the petitioner relieved himself and joined the Thiruprangundram on 10.05.2015. It is would be evident from the letter dated 10.05.2015, which is extracted hereunder: ghh;it (1) Kjy; (3)y; fz;l Mizfspd;gb, 10.05.2015 md;W Kw;gfy; Njdp khtl;lk; Nghb ehaf;fD}h; fpis
E}yfj;jpypUe;J jd;id jhNd tpLtpj;Jf; nfhz;L kJiu khtl;lk; jpUg;guq;Fd;wk; fpis E}yfj;jpy; 2k;epiy E}yfuhfg 10.05.2015 md;W gpw;gfy; gzpNaw;Wf; nfhz;Nld; vd;w tptuj;ij jq;fSf;F gzpTld; njhptpj;Jf; nfhs;fpNwd;.
11. Admittedly the petitioner was working in Thiruparangundram from 10.05.2015 onwards and the petitioner is entitled to the salary for the said period. The respondents have not taken any action against the petitioner for getting relieved on his own. Moreover the auditing report states that there are several discrepancies, under such circumstances the respondents are not right in stating that the petitioner is considered as absent. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents are bound to pay the salary to the petitioner for the period from 10.05.2015.
12. Therefore this Court is directing the respondents to disburse the salary for the period from 10.05.2015 to 18.06.2016 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. This Court also directs the respondents to take appropriate action to ensure smooth running of the libraries and eradicate the discrepancies pointed out by the auditing officer.
4. The question that calls for consideration is whether the order of the learned single Judge warrants interference. The only question that has to be posed is whether Venkatavel Pandi was guilty of non- compliance of the transfer order.
5. The transfer order is very clear and specific. It states that Venkatavel Pandi can join the Thiruparankundram Branch Library only after handing over the charge to the person replacing him. It is seen that Balamurugan did not accept the charge from the petitioner. He pleaded some excuse. Likewise, Thiru.Visuvasam who was substituted in the place of Balamurugan also did not accept the charge.
6. In these circumstances, fastening blame on Venkatavel Pandi appears to be patently unfair. The learned single Judge adopted an equitable approach. Interference with the said order is not called for. The Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (G.R.S. J.,) & (M.D.S. J.,) 05.10.2026 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No rmi
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. and M.D.SUMATHI
, J.
rmi W.A.(MD)No.905 of 2022
05.10.2026