Madras HC rejects plea against allocation of work by Madurai Corporation

Chennai: Pointing out that public works are divine work and the public servants at no point of time should deny performance of duties and responsibilities to the public at large, the Madras high court rejected a plea to quash an order of the Madurai Corporation, allocating work and job responsibilities to various cadres.

Justice S.M.Subramaniam said, "The lis on hand is a classic one, where the petitioners are attempting to interfere with the administrative prerogative of the Madurai Corporation, wherein job responsibilities and work allocations are made. The allocation of works is the administrative prerogative and the employees have no role to play at all. If at all any grievances exist in the matter of performance of the work, it is left open to the aggrieved employees to approach the competent authorities concerned for redressal. However, high courts cannot interfere with such administrative decisions taken by the competent authorities for the efficient functioning of the public officials, more specifically, with reference to the allocation of works and job responsibilities".  Disposing of a petition from Madurai Corporation Sanitary Inspectors and Sanitary Officers Welfare Association, which sought to quash an order of the Madurai Corporation dated July 3, 2017, the judge said the high court is not an expert body so as to give suggestion for rationalisation of works and job responsibilities. The public servants are bound to work wherever they are posted and whatever works allotted to them. Any public servant, whatsoever their cadre may be, they are bound to perform all the works and responsibilities whatever allotted, considering the urgency, necessities and other circumstances. This being the nature of the public service, the petitioner association cannot come out with a petition by stating that they must be allotted with the specific work or they are to be allotted with excessive work are to be decided by the administrative authorities and if at all any grievance exist, it is left open to the petitioner association to submit a representation for consideration, the judge added.

The judge said undoubtedly such administrative decision would not provide any cause of action for the petitioner to approach the high court for the purpose of quashing the circular issued by the Commissioner regarding the job responsibilities allotted to various cadres.