Tamil Nadu IAS officer moves HC alleging humiliation at the hands of her excellent officer


S. Senthamarai, an Indian Administrative Assistance (IAS) officer, has moved the Madras Higher Courtroom alleging that she is getting humiliated by her outstanding officer. She has challenged a Authorities Purchase (GO) via which the subject matter ‘cinema,’ managed by her so much, has been shifted from the business office of Commissioner of Land Administration to the place of work of Commissioner of Revenue Administration.

Justice Abdul Quddhose has directed Additional Advocate Standard J. Ravindran and Distinctive Govt Pleader D. Ravichander to just take discover on behalf of the Chief Secretary, Household Secretary, Earnings Secretary and Public Secretary. He has ordered see, returnable by February 9, to Commissioner of Land Administration S. Nagarajan who experienced been bundled as respondent by identify in his personal capacity way too.

In her affidavit, the petitioner explained that she was serving as Joint Secretary in Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare division right before getting transferred and posted as Joint Commissioner of Land Administration (cinema and irrigation) in August 2021. In the new capacity, she was the appellate authority beneath the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act of 1955 and the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Guidelines of 1957.

She alleged that Mr. Nagarajan experienced insulted her for the duration of a assembly with next-degree officers in the section in his chambers previous 12 months. She claimed that she was offended around the hold off in disposal of a file relating to renewal of license for a cinema owned by Pleasure SA Raja in Kanniyakumari and was not ready to pay attention to her rationalization that she required time to seem into it since the file experienced been pending for various several years.

The petitioner informed the court docket that the file had been dealt with by Mr. Nagarajan himself when he served as Joint Commissioner of Land Administration and that he had refused to renew the license though serving as Kanniyakumari Collector. She alleged that the Commissioner asked her to get out of his workplace area and warned her that he would lock her area and make her stand outside the house.

“I was humiliated by the sixth respondent since I did not accede to his request to go orders quickly in the cinema license renewal about Pleasure SA Raja… This unbecoming perform and actions is unwarranted, inappropriate and in violation of my legal rights, both of those as a human and as a girl holding authorities business,” the affidavit read. The petitioner also claimed to have claimed the difficulty to the Chief Secretary on January 10.

On February 3, the Commissioner of Land Administration passed an place of work get shifting all topics, which includes cinema and irrigation, managed by the petitioner, to an More Commissioner in the department. Aggrieved more than it, the petitioner produced a further illustration to the Main Secretary on February 4 complaining that the Commissioner was exhibiting offensive actions and had abused her verbally.

Subsequently, to her shock, a GO was issued on November 28 transferring the complete topic of cinema from the workplace of Commissioner of Land Administration to the Commissioner of Earnings Administration. Assaulting the legality of the Government Order, the petitioner contended that this sort of transfer was in violation of the 1955 Act and that it was a colourable physical exercise of electrical power. She claimed it to be the end result of vindictive mindset.

The petitioner stated that the 1957 Principles relating to cinemas use the nomenclature ‘Joint Commissioner of Land Administration’ and for that reason, the issue cinema could not be simply just transferred to the Commissioner of Revenue Administration devoid of amending the statutory principles. She contended that the Commissioner of Income Administration does not have any sanctioned submit exactly where she could be accommodated.

Because the article lacked monetary sanction, she said, no money had been offered for her to attract her income, administrative prices and contingency. “I was instructed to be part of the Commissioner of Revenue Administration with quick influence with no provision for my income, thereby infringing upon my essential right to generate my livelihood and blocking me from carrying out my formal responsibilities from my assigned put of operate,” she has alleged in her petition.

- Advertisement -

Comments are closed.