[343]

ÿ√VÚ·¶¬ÔD

SOMMAIRES

CONTENTS

√¬ÔD

Page

ÿ>Va_ ¿]\[≈› yÏ©AÔ^ ..

344

Sentence arbitral du Travail

.. 344

Award of the Labour Court .. 344

de Tribunal.

∂´∑ ∂§s¬ÁÔÔ^

353

Notifications du Gouvernement .. 353

Government Notifications

.. 353

g√›>V™ WÆk™∫Ô^

356

Etablissements dangereux

.. 356

Dangerous Establishments

356

ƒVu≈§¬ÁÔÔ^

358

Annonces

.. 358

Announcements

358

Amﬂºƒˆ \VWÈ ∂´E>µ

La Gazette de L' État de Poudouchéry

The Gazette of Puducherry

∂]ÔV´D ÿ√u≈ ÿkπX|

Publiée par Autorité

Published by Authority

®ı

Amﬂºƒˆ

ÿƒÀkVF¬˛wÁ\

2024 }

º\ |

14 {

No.

Poudouchéry

Mardi

Mai

2024 (24 Vaisakha 1946)

No.

Puducherry

Tuesday

14th

May

2024

Registered with the Registrar

of Newspapers for India

under No. 10410

344

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[14 May 2024

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

LABOUR DEPARTMENT

(G.O. Rt. No. 48/AIL/Lab./S/2024,

Puducherry, dated 23rd April 2024)

NOTIFICATION

Whereas, an Award in I.D. (L) No. 06/2017,

dated 28-02-2024 of the Labour Court, Puducherry, in

respect of the industrial dispute between the

management of M/s. Sri Manakula Vinayagar

Educational Trust, Madagadipet, Puducherry and its

workman Thiru P. Anandhan, over reinstatement and

compensation has been received;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947), read with

the Notification issued in Labour Department’s G.O. Ms.

No. 20/9/Lab./L, dated 23-05-1991, it is hereby directed

by the Secretary to Government (Labour) that the said

Award shall be published in the Official Gazette,

Puducherry.

(By order)

S. SANDIRAKUMARAN,

Under Secretary to Government (Labour).

————

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT AT PUDUCHERRY

Present : Tmt. G.T. AMBIKA, M.L., PGDCLCF.,

Presiding Officer.

Wednesday, the 28th day of February, 2024

I.D. (L) No. 06/2017

CNR. No. PYPY06-000100-2017

Thiru Anandhan,

S/o. Perumal,

No. 24, Eswaran Koil Backside,

M.G.R. Nagar, Valavanur and Post,

Villupuram District.

. . Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director,

Sri Manakula Vinayagar Educational Trust,

No. 23, Mariamman Koil Street,

Madagadipet, Puducherry.

. . Respondent

This Industrial Dispute coming on 27-02-2024

before me for final hearing in the presence of

Thiru D. Ravichandiran, Counsel for the Petitioner,

Thiruvalargal L. Sathish, S. Ulaganathan, T. Pravin,

S. Velmurugan, V. Veeraragavan and E. Karthik, Counsels

for the Respondent and after hearing the both sides,

and perusing the case records, this Court delivered the

following:

AWARD

This Industrial Dispute arises out of the reference

made by the Government of Puducherry vide G.O. Rt.

No. 22/AIL/LAB/T/2017, dated 24-02-2017 of the Labour

Department, Puducherry, to resolve the following

dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondents,

viz.

(a) Whether the industrial dispute raised by

Petitioner Thiru P. Anandhan, Puducherry, against

the Management of M/s. Sri Manakula Vinayagar

Educational Trust, Madagadipet, Puducherry, over

reinstatement and compensation and to issue Service

Certificate is justifiable or not? If justified, what relief

the Petitioner is entitled to?

(b) To compute the relief, if any, awarded in terms

of money, if it can be so computed?

2. The averments set forth in the claim petition is

as follows:

The Petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant

on 14-02-2005 vide appointment order, dated 04-02-

2005 in the Respondent management. Initially he has

been entrusted with charge in the Pharmacy section

and rendered his service in an unblemished

manner and up to the expectation/satisfaction of the

employer. By appreciating his service, Respondent

also issued a Service Certificate, dated 07-03-2008.

Subsequently

has

been

transferred

Venkateswara College of Education and Venkateswara

Teacher Training Institute on 17-09-2008. At the time

of his initial appointment his salary was fixed at

` 2,500 per month as a consolidated pay. His

responsibility was fixed relating to clerical work in

the Hospital and Medical College and the works

allotted to time to time. He never discharged any

work in the supervisory cadre. After completion of

the period of one year he was not disturbed at any

stage and discharged his work in a regular manner

till 25-08-2011 the date on which he was relieved from

his duty in a abrupt manner without any notice of

termination.

(ii) The Petitioner has to be construed as a regular

worker and his nature of work has not been altered

and it deems to be that he had a continuous duty

from the date of appointment until he was relieved.

Till the date of his relieving order there is no whisper

from the management about his unsatisfactory work

345

14 May 2024]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

if, any but, all of a sudden he has been relieved from

his duty without any reason. Even after he was

relieved from his duty the Chairman and Managing

Director of the Respondent Trust issued a Service

Certificate, dated 14-06-2014 by appreciating his

unblemished service. Sudden/surprise relieving order

of the Petitioner by the management/respondent is

arbitrary and against the natural justice.

(iii) The Petitioner made several attempts and

approached Vice-Chairman, Managing Director,

Administrative Officer several times for his

employment but, all of is efforts ended in vain. From

26-08-2011 to July 2014, this Petitioner approached

all the authorities concerned in the Respondent

Management for his employment but, they one way

or other misguided the Petitioner, hence, this

Petitioner issued an Advocate Notice, dated

12-07-2014 informing the Management that he will

raise industrial dispute against the management.

(iv) Even after this the Management has not come

forward to offer employment to the Petitioner. This

Petitioner also approached Legal Services Authority,

Villupuram and on the direction given by the Legal

Services Authority, Villupuram, he appeared before

the Legal Services Authority, Puducherry and in the

proceedings before the Legal Services Authority from

27-01-2015, the Respondent Management initially

come forward to offer employment to this Petitioner

and subsequently vide their letter, dated 08-04-2015

negated the request of the Petitioner and raise

several allegations against this Petitioner in a

surprise manner for the 1st time before the said

authority. The Legal Services Authority, Puducherry,

also advised the Respondent management to

consider the grievance of the petitioner but, the

Respondent Management failed to Act as per their

advice. Hence, they advised this Petitioner to

approach the proper form for appropriate relief. Even

after this, the Petitioner submitted a representation,

dated 12-10-2015 to the respondents, requesting

them to consider the grievance of the Petitioner and

requested them to offer employment to him. They

received the said representation on 13-10-2015 but,

have not considered the said representation till this

date and also not come forward to issue any reply.

Hence, this Petitioner submitted a representation,

dated 16-03-2016 before the Labour Officer

(Conciliation), Puducherry, for reinstatement into

service and compensation with Service Certificate in

the said proceedings this respondent appeared and

raised/leveled several charges in a surprise manner

for the purpose to defeat the claim of the petitioner

in an unlawful manner. All the charges leveled against

the Petitioner are not sustainable and only created

to defend/defeat the claim of the Petitioner. The

Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry, also taken

effective steps to settle the matter in an amicable

manner, but, due to adamant attitude of the

Respondent, matter ended in failure and hence, he

referred the dispute for adjudication.

3. The averments set forth in the counter statement

filed by the respondent is as as follows:

The reference per se is bad and is liable to be

rejected on certain basic and preliminary legal

infirmities. Very description of the Respondent as

present industrial dispute against the Respondent as

Sri Manakula Vinayagar Educational Trust Private

Limited is wrong. The Respondent is a registered

Educations trust and is not a private limited entity.

Hence, the very reference with mis-description of

Respondent is wrong.

(ii) The Petitioner has no locus standi to raise the

industrial dispute against the Respondent as even

according to Petitioner he was last employed at

Venkateswara College of Education, Kalitheerthalkuppam,

Puducherry. The Petitioner was appointed by the

Managing Director of Sri Manakula Vinayagar

Medical College and Hospital on 14-02-2005. He was

transferred to Venkateswara College of Education by

Managing Director of Sri Manakula Vinayagar

Medical College and Hospital on 17-09-2008.

Petitioner was relieved from services by Managing

Director of Venkateswara College of Education.

Though both the institutions where Petitioner was

appointed and relieved are running under the aegis

of Respondent, they are two separate, independent,

self financing institutions both of those institutions

are separately registered legal entity with

independent administrative setup and without any

functional integrality. Even, the Respondent trust

does not interfere into the day to day administration

of the two institutions. The Respondent Trust or its

Trustees or administrators does not play any role in

either appointment or dismissal of any of the

employees of the said institutions in their capacity

as Trustees or Administrators of Trust. Therefore, the

Petitioner cannot raise any industrial dispute against

the Respondent Trust as there is privy between the

Petitioner and the Respondent. The Petitioner ought

to have raised the dispute against Venkateswara

College of Education. At the least, the petitioner

ought to have made the said institution a party to

the industrial dispute, which has not been done by

him. Hence, no relief as claimed by the Petitioner can

be granted by this Court against the Respondent

Trust.

346

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[14 May 2024

(iii) The Petitioner was never terminated from the

services of Venkateswara College of Education,

Puducherry, for him to claim wrongful termination,

reinstatement or compensation. He was only relieved

from his services by the said institution and at his

own request, which was done by him to avoid legal

actions that were contemplated by Respondent

against him for multiple misconducts and criminal

actions during his tenure of employment at

Venkateswara College of Education and Sri Manakula

Vinayagar Medical College and Hospital. The

Petitioner had voluntarily put down his services but,

without any written letter of registration, which is

being taken undue advantage of by him at this stage.

(iv) After voluntarily quitting the employment of

Respondent and obtaining a clean relieving order

with no adverse remarks, Petitioner got multiple

employments with various other educational and

business entities. Petitioner joined as clerk in

Sri Venkateswara Medical College Hospital and

Research Center, Ariyur and worked there for few

months. Even, there the Petitioner left the services

on his own without submitting resignation letter and

then join Devi Oil Industry, Thirubuvanai. He worked

there for close one year or so and thereafter, once

again left the said company without submitting

resignation and joined VSB Paper Products,

P.S. Palayam, Puducherry and worked as Accounts

Assistant from September, 2014 to June, 2015. The

Petitioner is now employed in Anbu Paulson's Anbu

Cement, Anbu Nagar, Sethurapet Industrial Estate,

Thuthipet, Puducherry, with effect from 17-02-2016 to

till date on monthly salary of ` 10,000 as ascertained

from the firm. The Petitioner has secured all these

employment only by showing the clean and

unblemished relieving order by Venkateswara College

of Education, Puducherry. Thus, the Petitioner had

actually voluntarily left the services of Venkateswara

College of Education, Puducherry, to avoid and

escape disciplinary and criminal actions by the said

institution and after remaining quite for more than

2½ years, had started making claims of illegal

termination with intentions of extracting and

extorting money from the Respondent Trust. Since,

the Petitioner was never terminated from services

there is no question of his reinstatement. Hence,

there is absolutely no industrial dispute to adjudicate

by this Court.

(v) The Petitioner was appointed on 14-02-2005 as

Junior Assistant by Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical

College and Hospital and he was posted in Pharmacy

Section in the said Hospital. During Petitioner’s

tenure as Junior Assistant in the Free Pharmacy

Section, his job was to generate computerized bill for

the medicines prescribed. He was always reported to

be impertinent and arrogant and frowned on the

patients crowding the counter in the free pharmacy.

(vi) Several patients and pharmacists had lodged

complaint against petitioner for his rough behavior.

The Petitioner’s employer and his immediate superiors

had orally warned him several times also issued a

Memorandum once to that effect Memorandum No.

SMVMCH/A3/Esst./Junior Assistant/2008-2009,

dated 16-05-2008. But, the Petitioner did not change

his attitude and therefore, Petitioner’s employer

thought it appropriate to place Petitioner at a place

where he will have to have lesser interaction with

people. Thus, he was transferred from Free Pharmacy and

posted to Venkateswara College of Education,

Kalitheerthalkuppam, Puducherry on 17-09-2008 in

the same capacity.

(vii) While, the Petitioner was working in the

Venkateswara College of Education his behavior

became even worse. Petitioner had always exhibited

short temperateness and would fight with even

co-worker and his superiors for trivial issues and will

disobey the orders of his Principal. He has performed

work according to his whims and fancy would never

listen to the instructions of his superior. He poked

his nose into affairs of faculty members and students

which he is not supposed to do in his official capacity

as a clerical staff. Numerous counselling and

instructions were given to Petitioner by his immediate

seniors and even the Principal of the institution but,

he did not correct himself.

(viii) On 26-02-2009 Petitioner prepared printing

charges bill of Respondent's College duly enclosing

the duplicate bills of the printing press. When that

claim was rejected, he got certification from the

Principal stating that the original bills were

irrecoverably lost. On the basis of the certification

about the loss of original printing bills, the claim

supported by the duplicate bills was passed and

payment made to the printing press. However, after

a month or so, it was notice from the office records

that the original bills, were claimed in recoupment of

permanent imprest of the B.Ed., College and payment

received by the Principal of Venkateswara College of

Education through petitioner. Knowing fully well

about the recoupment of Permanent Imprest before

hand, the claim was preferred twice once through

payment vouchers enclosing original bills in

recoupment of imprest and another one through the

printing press claim in a contingent bill endorsing

payment to the printers. It was thus a clear case of

making illegal enrichment by forgery and fudging

records.

347

14 May 2024]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

(ix) On another occasion, Petitioner instigated a

student Sundari to lodge a false police complaint

against Principal of Venkateswara College of

Education, Puducherry, Mrs. Nalini P. Rajagovindan

who us purported to scold the student in an abusive

language and made her wait for getting her original

Certificates from the college office. It was noticed

from the FIR of Mrs. Sundari, B.Ed., student that it

was the Petitioner who was instrumental in brain

washing the girl to lodge complaint against the

Principal and he even stood as witness to the false

accusation of the student complaint against the

principal lodged in Thirubuvanai Police Station. The

Police complaint lodged by Mrs. Sundari gave untold

sufferings to the Principal of the Respondent’s

institution. However, it was proved that the complaint

was a fabricated one at the instigation of the

Petitioner. After this incident since the Petitioner has

gone overboard with his misconducts and had gone

to the extent of causing serious prejudice to his own

employer, the administration of Venkateswara College

of Education, Puducherry issued Memorandum

No. VCE/A3/Esst./Junior Assistant/Disciplinary

Action/2011-2012, dated 10-08-2011 specifying in

detail various misconducts committed by petitioner

and calling upon him to submit his explanation to

such specific charges. It was at this juncture that

Petitioner profusely apologized for all his misdeeds

(though initially he was extremely violent and

misbehaving with the Principal) and offered to quit

his job instead of facing the charges leveled against

the

Petitioner

and

undergoing

disciplinary

proceedings. He requested his management to relieve

him with dignity to enable him have dignified

employment with some other concern. The employer

of Petitioner, after due deliberation and considering

the fact Petitioner was married man with minor

children took sympathy on him and agreed to relieve

him on his request and discharge him from services

based on his oral resignation of job. Only in this

background, Petitioner was relieved of his duties

from Venkateswara College of Education on 25-08-

2011, which facilitated the Petitioner to secure decent

employment with other employers.

(x) Sometimes in June 2014, he requested the

Respondent to issue Service Certificate for some

undisclosed purpose. Respondent genuinely wanted

to help Petitioner and since the Petitioner was

relieved from services on his own accord, a Service

Certificate was given to him on 14-06-2014. As the

Respondent did not carry any grudge or ill-will

against Petitioner, it issued a good character

certificate to Petitioner. The fact that Petitioner was

given Service Certificate by itself is a proof of the

fact that Petitioner was not terminated from service

but, he was relieved on his request. This doesn't

mean that he had performed unblemished service

during his tenure in the Medical College and B.Ed.,

College and the respondent do not want to spoil

Petitioner's future carrier by means of issued

unsatisfactory Service Certificate to him. On

humanitarian consideration only Petitioner was

relieved of his duties and that too on his request.

(xi) The Petitioner, has issued a legal notice on

12-07-2014, i.e., immediately after getting his Service-

cum-Conduct Certificate, dated 14-06-2014 from the

Respondent

management

seeking

either

reemployment or on payment of compensation of

` 25,00,000 by trying to take advantage of

Management's sympathy and in order to extricate

money. The very language and tenor of the notice

suggest that Petitioner had worked on a well

calculated plan. He had avoided any kind of action

against him by his employer by requesting him to be

relieved from services. Thereafter, he obtained decent

employment with other employers and after waiting

for close to 3 years approached the Respondent and

induced it to issue certificate to him. Immediately

thereafter, he issued legal notice demanding huge

compensation. Petitioner did not stop with that he

gave a false representation to the Hon'ble Chief

Minister of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, Hon'ble

Lieutenant-Governor of Puducherry and Legal Aid

Commission vide Petition No. 2014/797361/CP, dated

16-08-2014.

(xii) On the basis of petition, dated 16-08-2014

direction was given by the CM Cell to Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Villupuram, the Inspector

of Police, Valavanur Police Station, Valavanur, Tamil

Nadu, to enquire into the complaint. The employer

of Petitioner were summoned and numerous occasion

by the police officials, subjecting them to untold

sufferings. However, Police enquiry revealed the truth

where the Petitioner have a statement on 07-09-2014

that he and his family members are quite safe and

they have not received any threat from his employer.

Hence, all further actions were dropped by the Police.

This was an unwarranted action on the part of the

petitioner which caused unnecessary probe by the

Police Department of Government of Tamil Nadu

and spoil the reputation of the Educational and

Medical institutions of Respondent among the

public. This fabricated incident clearly revealed

petitioner’s criminal mind. The petitioner relentlessly

approached Puducherry State Legal Aid Commission

to intervene in his matter for getting compensation

applied and submitted Petition No. 117/2014, dated

12-07-2014.

348

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[14 May 2024

(xiii) The Petitioner was relieved on 25-08-2011 on

his request. If, the Petitioner had not requested his

employer to relieve him from services, a full fledged

Domestic Enquiry would have been conducted by his

employer and the charges against him would have

been proved. Having prevented the employer from

conducting the enquiry, Petitioner cannot take

advantage of his own conducts and claim that no

enquiry was conducted. In any event, the employer

of Respondent is still entitled to prove all the charges

of misconduct against the petitioner before this

Court and the Petitioner cannot claim reinstatement

only because no enquiry was conducted against him.

The respondent therefore, reserves its right to let in

oral evidence before this Court to prove the charges

of grave misconducts committed by Petitioner as per

the charge sheet, dated 10-08-2011. Hence, prayed for

dismissal of the claim petition.

4. Point for determination:

1. Whether the industrial dispute raised by the

petitioner as against the respondent trust is

maintainable or not maintainable?

2. Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner as

against the respondent trust over his non

employment is justified?

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs

as claimed in the claim petition?

5. On Points 1 to 3:

The petitioner himself examined as PW.1 and

Exs.P1 to P12 were marked and through cross

examination Exs.R1 to R3 were marked. On the

Respondent side Mr. Datchinamurthy, the Registrar

of Respondent management was examined as RW.1

and through him Exs.R4 to R17 were marked.

Mr. Rajasekaran was examined as RW.2 and

Mr. R. Prabu was examined as RW.3 and Exs.R18 and

R19 marked through him.

6. The contention of the petitioner is that he was

appointed as a junior Assistant in the respondent

management on 14-2-2005 and thereafter, he was

rendering his service without any unblemished records

and on 07-03-2008 the respondent had issued service

certificate appreciating the character and conduct of the

petitioner and subsequently on 17-09-2008 the

respondent

has

transferred

the

petitioner

Venkateswara College of Education and Venkateswara

Teacher Training Institute and thereafter, on wards the

petitioner was discharging his work as a regular worker

and at any point of time the Petitioner had worked in

supervisory capacity and while so the petitioner was

relieved from his duty on 25-08-2011 all of a sudden

without any notice of termination and further, even after

the petitioner was relieved from the service the

respondent educational trust has service certificate on

14-06-2014. The further contention of the petitioner is

that thereafter, the petitioner from 26-08-2011 to July,

2014 had been approaching the respondent authorities

but, all the attempts of the petitioner had ended in vain

and therefore, the petitioner has issued legal notice,

dated 12-07-2014 but, there was no any response and

later the petitioner had approached legal services

authority and for the first time the respondent had

raised several allegations against the petitioner and

thereafter, the petitioner had approached the Labour

officer conciliation for reinstatement to service and for

compensation but, the said efforts also ended in failure.

7. Per contra, the contention of the respondent is

that the industrial dispute raised as against the

respondent is unsustainable for the reason that the

Petitioner was employed at Venkateswara College of

Education and though the Petitioner was appointed by

the Managing Director of respondent trust on

14-02-2005 but, was transferred to Venkatesawara

College of Education by the same Managing Director

of respondent trust but, both institutions are separately

registered legal entity with independent administration

and therefore, the industrial dispute raised as against

the respondent trust is not maintainable. The other

contention of the respondent is that the petitioner was

not terminated from service but, was relieved from the

institution on his own request but, without obtaining

any written letter of resignation from the petitioner and

therefore, the Petitioner is trying to take advantage of

the same and further, after quitting from the respondent

management the Petitioner got employment in various

educational and business entities by showing the

Service Certificate issued by the respondent

management and had worked for few months and left

the job on his own accord without submitting any

resignation and the petitioner is presently working at

paulson's Anbu cement from 17-02-2016 and earning

monthly salary of ` 10,000 per month. The further,

contention of the petitioner is that during the tenure of

the petitioner as Junior Assistant in Sri Manakula

Vinayagar Medical College and Hospital the petitioner

was working in the Free Pharmacy Section and it was

reported by several patients and pharmacists that the

petitioner was impertinent, arrogant and frowned on the

patients crowding in the counter pharmacy and was not

cordial with petitioner’s employer and his immediate

349

14 May 2024]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

superiors and therefore, a memorandum, dated

16-05-2008 was issued to the petitioner but, then also

the Petitioner did not change his attitude and therefore,

the Petitioner was transferred to a place where the

interaction with people was less and thereby was

transferred to Venkestwara College of Education on

17-09-2008 but, again the Petitioner did not mend his

attitude and picked up quarrel with co-worker and his

superior and disobeyed the orders of the Principal and

similarly on 26-02-2009 the petitioner had prepared

printing charges bill by enclosing duplicate bills of

printing press and when the same was rejected the

petitioner managed to obtain a certificate from principal

stating that original bills were lost and thereafter, the

printing charges bills were passed but, later it was

noticed that the petitioner has recouped permanent

imprest of the college with original bills and thereby the

petitioner has attempted to make illegal enrichment by

forgery and fudging records. The yet another

contention of the respondent is that the petitioner

instigated a student by name Sundari to lodge a false

complaint against the Principal of Venkateswara College

of Education and even stood as a witness for the false

accusation and therefore, for the misconduct of the

petitioner a memorandum, dated 10-08-2011 was issued

but, later at the request of petitioner the management

had elieved the petitioner, considering the welfare of the

petitioner and his family members and subsequently out

of sympathy and to help the petitioner, the respondent

management had issued Service Certificate, dated

14-06-2014 to the petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner

also continued to work in various educational and

business establishments and subsequently suppressing

all these facts has raised this industrial dispute.

8. This Court finds that the employment of petitioner

in Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College and Hospital

on 04-02-2005 and transfer of petitioner to Venkateswara

College of Education and Venkateswara Teacher Training

Institute on 17-09-2008 stands undisputed by both

parties. In this case, the first objection of the respondent

is that the very description of the respondent as private

limited entity is incorrect one and the exact name of the

respondent trust is Sri Manakula Vinayaga Educational

Trust and therefore, the same has to be corrected by

the petitioner. This Court on perusal of case records

finds that as per order passed in I.A. 57/2018, dated

10-05-2018, the petitioner herein had been permitted to

amend the name of the respondent trust as Sri Manakula

Vinayaga Educational Trust and subsequently, the

petitioner also has carried out necessary amendments

thereon and further, the records reveals that the

respondent herein has not challenged the Order in I.A.

No. 57/2018, dated 10-05-2018 before the Hon'ble Apex

Court and hence, in the said context the above

objection raised by the respondent does not hold any

water.

9. The next objection of the respondent is that the

petitioner was initially appointed at Sri Manakula

Vinayakar Medical College and Hospital on 14-02-2005

but, later has been transferred to Venkateswara College

of Education and though the Managing Director for the

abovesaid two Institutions are one and the same but,

the said Institutions were registered as separate legal

entities with independent administration and therefore,

the petitioner ought to have raised dispute as against

Venkateswara College of Education and hence, the relief

claimed by the petitioner as against the respondent

Trust cannot be granted. This Court on perusal of Ex.P1

finds that it is an order of appointment issued by

Sri Manakula Vinayagar Educational Trust for having

the petitioner appointed as Junior Assistant for

Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College and Hospital

and likewise on perusal of Ex.P3 transfer Order, dated

17-09-2008, it is found that the same has been issued

by Sri Manakula Vinayakar Medical College and

Hospital stating that the petitioner is transferred to

Venkateswara College of Education and Venkateswara

Teacher Training Institute in the same capacity as given

at Sri Manakula Vinayakar Medical College and

Hospital. Further, the Exs.P1, P3 and P4 that is the

appointment order, transfer order and relieving order is

found to have been signed by one and same person in

the capacity as Chairman of Sri Manakula Vinayaga

Educational Trust and as Managing Director of

Sri Manakula Vinayakar Medical College and Hospital

and Venkateswara College of Education.

10. Thus, on perusal of Exs.P1, Ex.P3 and Ex.P4, it is

found that the Managing Director for both Institutions

are one and the same and it is also admitted by the

respondent in the counter. Likewise on perusal of Ex.P5/

service certificate issued to the petitioner it is found

that the same has been issued by Chairman and

Managing Director of Sri Manakula Vinayaka

Educational Trust stating that the conduct and the

character of the petitioner during the tenure of his

service at Sri Manakula Vinayakar Medical College and

Hospital and Venkateswara College of Education was

good. Thus, it is found that the service certificate

stating the conduct of the petitioner during his tenure

in both institutions that is for Sri Manakula Vinayakar

Medical College and Hospital and Venkateswara College

of Education has been issued by a common service

certificate by the respondent Trust herein. Further more,

the R.W.1 during his cross-examination has admitted

that Sri Manakula Vinayakar Medical College and

350

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[14 May 2024

Hospital and Venkateswara College of Education were

administered by Sri Manakula Vinayaka Educational

Trust. Had it been true that the two institutions are two

separate legal entities with independent administration,

then the respondent has failed to explain as to why the

respondent educational trust has issued Ex.P5, a common

service certificate to the petitioner for the services

rendered at Sri Manakula Vinayakar Medical College and

Hospital and Venkateswara College of Education.

Hence, in the said context this Court is unable to accept

the contention of the respondent that the petitioner

cannot seek any relief as against the respondent

educational trust but, has to seek only as against

Venkateswara College of Education. Therefore, this

Court holds that the contention of respondent that the

industrial dispute ought to have been raised as against

Venkateswara College of Education and not as against

Sri Manakula Vinayaga Educational Trust is found to

be untenable one.

11. Now, coming to the facts of the case, it is the

contention of the petitioner that he had been working

from 14-02-2005 at Sri Manakula Vinayakar Medical

College and Hospital as Junior Assistant and thereafter,

has been transferred to Venkateswara College of

Education on 17-09-2008 and subsequently, he was

relieved on 25-08-2011 without conducting any domestic

enquiry or issuance of any notice of termination and

further, it is the contention of the petitioner that his

salary at the time of appointment was a fixed

consolidated pay of ` 2,500 per month and did not work

in the supervisory capacity in the abovesaid institutions.

This Court finds that though the respondent in the

counter has denied the abovesaid facts it is found that

the respondent has not produced any proof to show

the actual salary of the petitioner or to show that the

petitioner was employed for supervisory work. Hence,

in the said context this Court finds that the contention

of the petitioner that his initial salary was a fixed

consolidated pay of ` 2,500 and was a regular worker

and did not work in the supervisory capacity is

acceptable one and thereby the industrial dispute as

raised by the petitioner is held to be sustainable one.

12. In this case, it is admitted by both parties that

that the petitioner was employed at Sri Manakula

Vinayagar Medical college and hospital on 04-02-2005

and later was transferred to Venkateswara College of

Education and Venkateswara Teacher Training Institute

on 17-09-2008 and subsequently was relieved from the

service on 25-08-2011 as per Ex.P4. Further, it is the

specific case of the petitioner that before issuing

relieving order the respondent has neither conducted

any enquiry nor issued any notice of termination. The

respondent also admits that before issuance of Ex.P4

relieving order the respondent has neither conducted

any enquiry nor issued any notice of termination to the

petitioner and the reason for the same as stated by the

respondent is that the petitioner has committed various

misconducts more particularly when the petitioner was

working as Junior Assistant in Sri Manakula Vinayagar

Medical College and Hospital, the petitioner was at Free

Pharmacy section and at that time it was reported by

several patients and pharmacists that the petitioner was

impertinent, arrogant and frowned on the patients

crowding in the counter pharmacy and was not cordial

with petitioner's employer and his immediate superiors

and therefore, a Memorandum, dated 16-05-2008 was

issued to the petitioner but then also the petitioner did

not change his attitude and therefore, the petitioner was

transferred to a place where the interaction with people

was less and thereby, was transferred to Venkestwara

College of Education on 17-09-2008 but, again the

petitioner did not mend his attitude and picked up

quarrel with coworker and his superior and disobeyed

the orders of the Principal and similarly on 26-02-2009

the petitioner had prepared printing charges bill by

enclosing duplicate bills of printing press and when the

same was rejected the petitioner managed to obtain

a certificate from Principal stating that original bills were

lost and thereafter, the printing charges bills were

passed but, later it was noticed that the petitioner has

recouped permanent imprest of the college with original

bills and thereby, the petitioner has attempted to make

illegal enrichment by forgery and fudging records and

also instigated a student by name Sundari to lodge

a false complaint against the Principal of Venkateswara

College of Education and even stood as a witness for

the false accusation and therefore, a Memorandum,

dated 10-08-2011 was issued to the petitioner to submit

this explanation for the said charges but later, the

petitioner requested that he has to be relieved with

dignity and therefore, on considering the request of the

petitioner and his welfare the respondent has relieved

the petitioner from his service and therefore, the

petitioner is not entitled for the relief of reinstatement

with back wages and with compensation.

13. The respondent to prove that complaints were

given by few patients has produced Exs.R9, R10, R12

through R.W.1 and likewise has produced Ex.R11 and

Ex.R15 to substantiate that Memorandum, dated

16-05-2008 and Memorandum, dated 10-08-2011 was

issued to the petitioner. However, the R.W.1 during his

cross-examination has deposed that the respondent has

not produced any proof for having served Ex.R11 and

R15 to the petitioner. Thus, in this case it is found that

the respondent has miserably failed to prove that

charge memo explaining the charge was issued to the

petitioner and further, the petitioner was given

opportunity to submit his explanation to the charge

memo and thereafter, proper domestic enquiry was

351

14 May 2024]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

conducted following the principles of natural justice.

When, the petitioner had worked in the management of

respondent from 14-02-2005 to 24-08-2011 then in such

case Ex.P5 relieving order issued to the petitioner is

nothing but, a termination simpliciter and the same is

untenable one. This Court finds that even in case if,

the respondent intended to take any action as against

the petitioner for the misconducts alleged by the

respondent, then the same ought to have been done

after following the principles of natural justice. In this

case the contention of the respondent that the

respondent has accepted the request of the petitioner

to be relieved with dignity and thereby neither enquiry

was conducted nor notice of termination was issued is

found to be unbelievable and unacceptable one.

14. Apart from that when the respondent contends

that the petitioner has committed various misconducts

as stated above then, in such case the respondent has

failed to prove the same. Further more, the respondent

is found to have issued service certificates Exs.P2,

dated 07-03.2008 and Ex.P5, dated 14-06-2014 stating

that the conduct and character of the petitioner during

his service at Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College

and Hospital and at Venkateswara College of Education

was good and more particularly Ex.P5 has been issued

after the petitioner was relieved from the respondent

management. Had it been true that the petitioner had

committed various misconducts as stated in the counter

then in such case, the explanation of the respondent

stating the compelling situation for issuance of Ex.P5

service certificate stating that the character and

conduct of the petitioner during his service period at

Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College and Hospital

and at Venkateswara College of Education was good is

found to be totally dubious and unbelievable one. Thus,

this Court holds that from the evidences adduced by

both sides and from the available material records, the

respondent has miserably failed to prove the charges

as alleged against the petitioner and thereby warranting

the petitioner to be relieved from the service. Therefore,

this Court from the above discussions holds the

conduct of the respondent is nothing but an unfair

labour practice and thereby holds that the Ex.P5

relieving order issued by the respondent is an illegal

one and is liable to be set aside and holds that the

petitioner is entitled for the relief of reinstatement.

15. In this case though the petitioner has denied

that he was employed anywhere else after he was

relieved from the respondent management but, it is

found that the petitioner during his cross-examination

has admitted that he had been working at VSB Paper

product from 2011 to 2014 and presently working at

Anbu Cement and thereby, it is found that after the

petitioner had been relieved from the respondent

management, the petitioner was gainfully employed in

the other establishments and thus, in the said context

this Court holds that the petitioner is not entitled for

any back wages. Hence, from the above discussions

this Court holds that the petitioner is entitled for the

relief of reinstatement without any back wages.

16. The respondent in this case has taken a plea that

the respondent has lost confidence upon the petitioner

on account of petitioner being arrayed as a witness in

respect of a complaint given by a student as against

the management and therefore even in case, the

petitioner is directed to be reinstated the same would

cause unnecessary embarrassment since, there is no

possibility to maintain the cordiality in future. This

Court finds that the petitioner during his cross-

examination has admitted that he had been cited as one

of the witness in the said criminal case lodged as against

the respondent management. Therefore, in such context

this Court finds that the contention of the respondent

that the relationship between the petitioner and

respondent has become strained and the respondent

management has lost the confidence upon the petitioner

and there is no any chance to maintain harmony in

between the petitioner and the respondent management

in future is found to be acceptable one. Thus, this Court

holds that the respondent herein has proved a case of

loss of confidence and hence, in the abovesaid

discussions, this Court holds that the reinstatement of

petitioner would cause embarrassment to both parties

and therefore, to maintain industrial peace, this Court

finds that it would be appropriate to direct the

respondent to pay a lump sum amount as compensation

to the petitioner.

17. This Court finds that it is not case of the

petitioner or respondent that the petitioner has got well

placed employment after the petitioner was relieved

from the employment of the respondent. Therefore,

on considering the same and the future prospectus of

the petitioner and the facts and circumstances of the

case, this Court finds that it would be appropriate to

direct the respondent to pay compensation of ` 8,00,000

(Rupees eight lakhs only) to the petitioner in lieu of

reinstatement. Thus, the dispute raised by the petitioner

is justified and the points are answered accordingly.

In the result, this petition is partly allowed with

modification by directing the respondent to pay

compensation of ` 8,00,000 (Rupees eight lakhs only)

to the petitioner in lieu of reinstatement within a period

of two months from today failing which the petitioner

is entitled for the said amount with interest at the rate

of 9% p.a. from the date of award to till the date of

realisation. There is no order as to costs.

352

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[14 May 2024

Dictated to the Stenographer, directly typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this

the 28th day of February, 2024.

G.T. AMBIKA,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

List of petitioner’s witness :

PW1

— 30-09-2019 Anandhan

List of petitioner's exhibits :

Ex.P1 — 04-02-2005 Photocopy

the

Appointment Order of the

Petitioner issued by the

Respondent.

Ex.P2 — 07-03-2008 Photocopy of the Service

Certificate issued by the

Respondent.

Ex.P3 — 17-09-2008 Photocopy of the Transfer

Order issued to the Petitioner.

Ex.P4 — 25-08-2011 Photocopy of the Relieving

Order issued to the Petitioner.

Ex.P5 — 14-06-2014 Photocopy of the Service

Certificate issued by the

Respondent.

Ex.P6 — 12-07-2014 Photocopy of the Advocate

Notice sent by the Petitioner.

Ex.P7 — 27-01-2015 Photocopy of the letter

given by the Petitioner to the

Member-Secretary, Puducherry

Legal

Aid

Commission,

Puducherry.

Ex.P8 — 08-04-2015 Photocopy of the Respondent's

letter

addressed

the

President, Puducherry State

Legal Aid Commission.

Ex.P9 — 12-10-2015 Photocopy of the Respondent

letter given by the Petitioner

to the Respondent.

Ex.P10 — 29-10-2015 Photocopy of the proof of

delivery letter issued by the

Senior Superintendent of

Post Offices, Puducherry.

Ex.P11 — 16-03-2016 Photocopy

the

representation submitted by

the Petitioner before the

Labour Officer (Conciliation),

Puducherry.

Ex.P12 — 03-02-2017 Photocopy of the Failure

Report given by the Labour

Officer

(Conciliation),

Puducherry.

List of respondent’s witnesses :

RW1

— 22-09-2021 Datchinamurthy

RW2

— 27-06-2022 Rajasekaran

RW3

— 12-07-2022 Prabu

List of respondent’s exhibits :

Ex.R1 — 06-09-2018 Photocopy of the letter

given by the Green Chemicals

to the Branch Manager,

Indian Bank, Koodapakkam.

Ex.R2 — 01-07-2014 Photocopy of the letter

given by Chandira to the

Hon'ble

Chief

Minister,

Puducherry.

Ex.R3 — 16-08-2014 Photocopy of the letter

given by the Petitioner to the

Hon'ble Chief Minister,

Tamil Nadu.

Ex.R4 — 21-09-2021 Letter of Authorization of

Mr. T. Datchinamurthy.

Ex.R5 — 22-08-2005 Photocopy of the letter for

Recognition issued by the

Regional

Director

Venkateswara College of

Education for Recognition of

B.Ed. Course.

Ex.R6 — 12-05-2006 Photocopy of the letter of

permission

issued

Ministry of Health and

Family Welfare permitting to

establish

new

Medical

C o l l e g e i n t h e n a m e o f

Sri

Manakula

Vinayaga

Educational Trust.

Ex.R7 — 13-10-2014 Photocopy of the Salary

Series

and

credit Statement issued by VSB

08-01-2015 Paper products claiming

Petitioner was working as

Accountant (2 Nos.)

Ex.R8 — September

Photocopy of the Attendance

Series

2014 to

February

(Nos.).

2015

353

14 May 2024]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

Ex.R9 — 10-05-2008 Photocopy of the complaint

given by one Mr. Kumar

against the Petitioner.

Ex.R10 — 13-05-2008 Photocopy of the complaint

given by one Mr. Arumugam

against the Petitioner.

Ex.R11 — 16-05-2008 Photocopy

the

Memorandum of warning

letter

issued

the

Respondent to Petitioner.

Ex.R12 — 18-07-2008 Photocopy of the complaint

given by one Mr. Veerasamy

against the Petitioner.

Ex.R13 —

–

Cash voucher and manual note

Series

prepared by the Petitioner

along with four original bills

for payment (7 Nos.).

Ex.R14 —

–

Manual hand written note

Series

prepared by the Petitioner

with duplicate bill claiming

the same are loosed and its

payment note issued by the

Respondent (6 Nos.).

Ex.R15 — 10-08-2011 Photocopy

the

Memorandum

issued

Venkateswara College of

Educational for Show Cause

to the Petitioner for his

various misconducts.

Ex.R16 — 06-09-2018 Photocopy of the Salary

Credit Statement issued by

Green Chemicals to petition.

Ex.R17 — 20-04-2020 Photocopy of the Application

submitted by Paulsons Ltd.,

for reopening the unit at

Sedarapet,

describing

Petitioner as Manager in the

said Industry.

Ex.R18 —

–

Photocopy of the Aadhaar

Card of the Prabu.

Ex.R19 —

–

Letter of Authorization of

Mr. R. Prabu.

G.T. AMBIKA,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Puducherry.

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

HEALTH SECRETARIAT

(G.O. Ms. No. 18, Puducherry, dated 29th April 2024)

NOTIFICATION

On attaining the age of superannuation of 65 years,

Dr. P. Udayakumar, Senior Chief Medical Officer,

Government General Hospital, Karaikal, is admitted into

retirement with effect from the afternoon of 30-04-2024.

(By order)

S. MURUGESAN,

Under Secretary to Government

(Health).

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

CHIEF SECRETARIAT

(HIGHER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION)

(G.O. Ms. No. 11, Puducherry, dated 03rd May 2024)

NOTIFICATION

The Notice of resignation tendered by the following two (2) Assistant Professors is accepted, so as to

enable them to join the new post of Assistant Professor (Law) in the Department of Law, University of Lucknow,

Lucknow, with effect from the dates mentioned against each:

Sl.

Name of the

Institution

Date of one

Date from which

No.

Assistant Professor

month notice

the resignation

and Discipline

given for

is accepted

resignation

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Dr. Rupam Lal Howlader

Dr. Ambedkar Government Law College,

06-03-2024

03-05-2024 (Afternoon)

Puducherry.

354

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[14 May 2024

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Dr. Shashi Prabha Joshi

Dr. Ambedkar Government Law College,

06-03-2024

03-05-2024 (Afternoon)

Puducherry.

(By order of the Lieutenant-Governor)

V. SOUMYA,

Under Secretary to Government

(Higher and Technical Education).

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND

ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (PERSONNEL WING)

[G.O. Ms. No. 30/DP&AR-SS.II(1),

Puducherry, dated 07th May 2024]

NOTIFICATION

O n a t t a i n i n g t h e a g e o f s u p e r a n n u a t i o n

Thiru P. Murugananthan, Superintendent, Jawaharlal

Nehru Government Higher Secondary School,

Nedungadu, Karaikal, stands retired from service on the

afternoon of 31-03-2024.

(By order)

V. JAISANKAR,

Under Secretary to Government

(Personnel).

————

GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND

ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (PERSONNEL WING)

[G.O. Ms. No. 31/DP&AR-SS.II(1),

Puducherry, dated 07th May 2024]

NOTIFICATION

On attaining the age of superannuation, the

following Superintendents and Private Secretary

stand retired from service with effect from the

afternoon of 30-04-2024.

Sl.

Name of the Superintendents and

No.

Private Secretary, and Department/Office

(1)

(2)

Thiru/Tmt. :

C. Mounissamy @ Goubendrin,

Supeintendent,

Chief Secretariat,

Puducherry.

C. Counalane Satis,

Supeintendent,

Local Administration Department,

Puducherry.

R. Tamil Selvi,

Private Secretary,

Office of the Superintending Engineer - O & M/PR,

Electricity Department,

Puducherry.

(By order)

V. JAISANKAR,

Under Secretary to Government

(Personnel).

————

cwkÏÔÁ´ ÂÔ´V‚E

cwkÏÔÁ´ ÂÔ´V‚E, Amﬂºƒˆ

Amﬂºƒˆ

ºÔV©A ®ı 51á01/AEáI/JE(L)/O.M/22á23.

÷Æ] ∂§s©A

[1973ágD gıΩ[ Amﬂºƒˆ ÂÔ´V‚EÔ^ ƒ‚¶›][ ∏ˆ° ®ı 256 (1)á[ √Ω]

÷>™V_ ∂§s©√m BVÿ>M_, ˇµ¬Ôı¶ ∂‚¶kÁðl_ z§©∏¶©√‚|^· ÿ√Vm T]Ô·VÔ ÷_ÈV\_

÷ÚÕmkÚD T]Ô^ ÿ√Vm T]Ô·VÔ ∂§s¬Ô©√¶°^·m ®™°D, ∂m z§›m \Æ©AÔ^ ∞º>–D ÷Ú©∏[

∂m z§›>V™ ∂§s©A ÿkπl¶©√‚¶ 30 ÂV‚Ô”¬z^ ÿ>ˆs¬z\VÆD, 31-01-2024 ∂[Æ “]™\ÈÏ” >tµ ÂVº·‚ΩKD

�ÆD 31-01-2024 º>]l‚¶ ‘WR ÷[ΩB[ ®¬¸∏´¸’ g∫˛È ÂVº·ΩKD �ÆD ‘Amﬂºƒˆ \VWÈ ∂´E>a_

(Government Gazette)’, ®ı 7, 13-02-2024 º>]l_ ∂§s©A ÿkπl¶©√‚¶m.

355

14 May 2024]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

g™V_, º�Ì§B 30 ]™∫Ô”¬z^ \Æ©A ∞mD k´©ÿ√≈s_ÁÈ. ®™ºk, ˇµ¬Ôı¶ ∂‚¶kÁðl_

z§©∏¶©√‚|^· ÿ√Vm T]Ô·VÔ ÷_ÈV\_ ÷ÚÕm kÚD T]Ô^ ÿ√Vm T]Ô·VÔ ÷[Æ x>_ ∂§s¬Ô©√|˛≈m.

kˆÁƒ

kÚkVF

cˆÁ\BV·ÏÔπ[ ÿ√BÏ

\Æ ∂·Ák

√‚¶V

∂·°

®ı

˛´V\D/

(gkð©√Ω)

®ı

z§©A

c‚˛´V\D

¿·D

∂ÔÈD √´©√·°

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

]Ú./]Ú\]/ÿƒ_s :

ƒ.*.

39, ÔÚkΩ¬z©√D kÚkVF ˛´V\D

∂ıðV\ÁÈ

ÂÔÏ

∂ıðV\ÁÈ

ÂÔÏ

∂ıðV\ÁÈ

ÂÔÏ

∂ıðV\ÁÈ

ÂÔÏ

∂ıðV\ÁÈ

ÂÔÏ

Road (A)

1. Â¶´V¤[,

>/ÿ√. >ËÔVƒÈD x>oBVÏ;

49.2

6.1

2. ∂ıðV\ÁÈ,

137/3A/6

806

(k¶¬z) (˛w¬z)

317

˛w¬zá

>/ÿ√. >ËÔVƒÈD x>oBVÏ;

54.6

6.1

º�z

3. ´V¤©√[,

(ÿ>uz) (º�z)

>/ÿ√. >ËÔVƒÈD x>oBVÏ.

Road (B)

1. Â¶´V¤[,

>/ÿ√. >ËÔVƒÈD x>oBVÏ;

45.8

6.1

2. ∂ıðV\ÁÈ,

137/3A/6

806

(º�z) (k¶¬z)

276

k¶¬zá

>/ÿ√. >ËÔVƒÈD x>oBVÏ;

44.9

6.1

ÿ>uz

3. ´V¤©√[,

(˛w¬z) (ÿ>uz)

>/ÿ√. >ËÔVƒÈD x>oBVÏ.

Road (C)

1. Â¶´V¤[,

>/ÿ√. >ËÔVƒÈD x>oBVÏ;

21.9

6.1

2. ∂ıðV\ÁÈ,

137/3A/6

806

(k¶¬z) (˛w¬z)

104

˛w¬zá

>/ÿ√. >ËÔVƒÈD x>oBVÏ; 137/3D/3

21.7

3.4

º�z

3. ´V¤©√[,

(ÿ>uz) (º�z)

>/ÿ√. >ËÔVƒÈD x>oBVÏ.

Road (D)

ÂVÔ´›]™D\V^,

138/6

350

39.1

4.1

160

k¶¬zá

>/ÿ√. ÂÕ>ºÔV√V_ ÂVB¬ÔÏ.

(º�z) (k¶¬z)

ÿ>uz

39.1

4.1

(˛w¬z) (ÿ>uz)

R.S. 138/5

G.P. Canel

Road (E)

ÂVÔ´›]™D\V^,

138/6

350

14.3

4.1

59 +

>/ÿ√. ÂÕ>ºÔV√V_ ÂVB¬ÔÏ.

(k¶¬z) (˛w¬z)

14.4

4.1

(ÿ>uz) (º�z)

˛w¬zá

Ÿl¸ gº´V¬˛BƒVt

138/7

14.8

6.1

º�z

x>oBVÏ,

(k¶¬z) (˛w¬z)

>/ÿ√. Ÿl¸ QV™∏´ÔVƒD

14.7

6.1

x>oBVÏ.

(ÿ>uz) (º�z)

149

¤kÔÏ ÂÔÏ, ÂV^ : 02 º\, 2024,

gÁðBÏ.

356

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[14 May 2024

√VÌÏ

√VÌÏ ÿÔVDR[

ÿÔVDR[

ÿÔVDR[ √ﬁƒVB›m,

√ﬁƒVB›m,

√ﬁƒVB›m, Amﬂºƒˆ

Amﬂºƒˆ

g√›>V™ WÆk™∫Ô^

∂§s©A

ˇµ¬z§©∏¶©√‚|^· Â√Ï √VÌÏ ÿÔVDR[ √ﬁƒVB›][ ®_ÁÈ¬z^ ∏[kÚD ÿ>Va_ WÆk™›Á>

∂Á\›m¬ÿÔV^· ÷¬ÿÔVDR[ √ﬁƒVB›][ ∂–\] ºkı|˛≈VÏ.

kˆÁƒ

sıð©√>V´ˆ[

WÆk™D ∂Á\B

c›º>E¬Ô©√‚|^·

º>ÁkBV™

g‚Ôπ[

®ı

ÿ√BÏ �ÆD xÔkˆ

c^· ÷¶›][ xÔkˆ

WÆk™› >BVˆ©A/

t[ ]≈[

®ıË¬ÁÔ

ÿƒFxÁ≈

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

]Ú. D. xÚÔ[,

M/Arudra Cartons,

º√¬˛∫ º√©√Ï �ÆD

cˆÁ\BV·Ï,

\Æ ∂·Ák ®ı 157/1A/2,

∂‚Á¶© ÿ√‚ΩÔ^

z]Á´›

\Æ ∂·Ák ®ı 2/3,

\ð©√‚|,

>BVˆ›m ∂ﬂE|>_.

]≈[.

º�z ƒÏzÈÏ ƒVÁÈ,

\ð©√‚| kÚkVF ˛´V\D,

´V¤V ∂ıðV\ÁÈA´D,

√VÌÏ ÿÔVDR[, Amﬂºƒˆ.

\ÕÁ>ÿkπ√V¬ÔD,

ÿƒ[Á™á600 028.

1973ágD gı| Amﬂºƒˆ ˛´V\D �ÆD ÿÔVDR[ √ﬁƒVB›m¬Ô^ ƒ‚¶›][ JÈ\VF Amﬂºƒˆ Œ[§B›m

g‚E©√´©∏_ ∂xÈV¬Ô©√‚¶ Amﬂºƒˆ ÿÔVDR[ √ﬁƒVB›m¬Ô^ (cˆ\D �ÆD ∂–\] ∂π›>_) s]Ô^, 1976, ∏ˆ°

11á[√Ω ÷›ÿ>Va_ WÆk™›Á> WÆ°k]™V_ cı¶VzD g‚ºƒ√Á™Ô^ ∞º>–D ÷ÚÕ>V_, ∂kuÁ≈ ÷Õ>

∂§s©A ÿkπBV™ º>]loÚÕm √]Á™Õm ÂV‚Ô”¬z^ √VÌÏ ÿÔVDR[ √ﬁƒVB›m gÁðBÏ ∂kÏÔ”¬z ®ø›m

JÈ\VF ÿ>ˆB©√|›mD√Ω ºÔ‚|¬ÿÔV^·©√|˛≈m.

z§©∏‚¶¬ ÔVÈkÁ´BÁ≈¬z^ ÿ√≈©√|D g‚ºƒ√Á™Ô^ √VÌÏ ÿÔVDR[ √ﬁƒVB›>V_ √ˆÊo¬Ô©√|D.

V. ´º\i,

´º\i,

gÁðBÏ.

————

BAHOUR COMMUNE PANCHAYAT, PUDUCHERRY

Bahour, dated 30th April 2024.

Dangerous Establishments

NOTICE

The undermentioned person has requested for permission to set up the following industry within the

Bahour Commune Panchayat limits as detailed below.

Sl.

Name and address

Address of the

Industry

Power

No. of

No.

of the applicant

industry site

proposed

required

workers

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Thiru D. Murugan,

M/s. Arudra Cartons,

Manufacturing of

90 H.P.

Proprietor,

Re-survey No. 157/1A/2,

corrugated and

Re-survey No. 2/3,

Manapet,

carton/packaging

West Sarkular Road,

Manapet Revenue Village,

materials with

Raja Annamalaipuram,

Bahour Commune,

printing.

Mandaivelipakkam,

Puducherry.

Chennai-600 028.

357

14 May 2024]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

In conformity with rule 11 of the Puducherry Commune Panchayats (Grant of Licences and Permissions) Rules,

1976, promulgated in this Union Territory by the Puducherry Village and Commune Panchayats Act, 1973, objections,

if any, to the setting up of the above industry, are invited to reach the Commissioner, within 15 days from the date

of publication of this notice in the Official Gazette.

The objections so received within the specified period will be considered by the Bahour Commune Panchayat.

V. RAMESH,

Commissioner.

————

s_oB˚Ï

s_oB˚Ï ÿÔVDR[

ÿÔVDR[

ÿÔVDR[ √ﬁƒVB›m,

√ﬁƒVB›m,

√ﬁƒVB›m, Amﬂºƒˆ

Amﬂºƒˆ

g√›>V™ WÆk™∫Ô^

∂§s©A

∂Á\›m¬ÿÔV^· ÷¬ÿÔVDR[ √ﬁƒVB›][ ∂–\] ºkı|˛≈VÏ.

kˆÁƒ

sıð©√>V´ˆ[

WÆk™D ∂Á\B

c›º>E¬Ô©√‚|^·

º>ÁkBV™

g‚Ôπ[

®ı

ÿ√BÏ �ÆD xÔkˆ

c^· ÷¶›][ xÔkˆ

WÆk™› >BVˆ©A/

t[ ]≈[ ®ıË¬ÁÔ

ÿƒFxÁ≈

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

]Ú. ®D. ´º\i Ôıð[, M/s. ®¸ ®[ º¤ Ω¸¶Èˆ¸

∏Á·F[Ω∫ ∂ı|

600

150

®ı 1, ∂ıðV\ÁÈ ÂÔÏ,

∏Á´ºk‚ ot‚ÿ¶‚,

√V‚Ωo∫.

z]Á´›

(√ËxÁ≈

®¸.®¸. ÂÔÏ sˆ°,

\Æ ∂·Ák ®ıÔ^ 10/1,

]≈[.

Œ[Æ)

ÿ>Vı¶\V™›>D,

10/3/A, 3/1, 3/2, 3/3, 3/3/B,

150

Amﬂºƒˆá605 502.

3/3/C, 3/3/D, 3/3/E, 3/3/F,

(√ËxÁ≈

3/3/G, 3/4/A, 3/4/B, 3/4/C,

÷´ı|).

3/4/D, 3/4/E, 3/4/F,

º´V|, s_oB˚Ï, Amﬂºƒˆ.

1973ágD gı| Amﬂºƒˆ ˛´V\D �ÆD ÿÔVDR[ √ﬁƒVB›m¬Ô^ ƒ‚¶›][ JÈ\VF Amﬂºƒˆ Œ[§B›m

∏ˆ° 11á[√Ω ÷›ÿ>Va_ WÆk™›Á> WÆ°k>™V_ cı¶VzD g‚ºƒ√Á™Ô^ ∞º>–D ÷ÚÕ>V_, ∂kuÁ≈ ÷Õ>

s_oB˚Ï ÂV^ : 07, º\, 2024.

R. ÔVÏ›]ºÔB[,

ÔVÏ›]ºÔB[,

gÁðBÏ.

————

VILLIANUR COMMUNE PANCHAYAT, PUDUCHERRY

Villianur, dated 07th May 2024.

Dangerous Establishments

NOTICE

The undermentioned person has requested permission to set up the following industry within the Villianur

Commune Panchayat limits, as detailed below.

358

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[14 May 2024

Name and address

Address of the

Industry

Power

No. of

No.

of the applicant

industry site

proposed

required

workers

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

1 Thiru M. Ramesh Kannan

M/s. SNJ Distillers Ptivate Limited,

Blending and

600 H.P.

150

No. 1, Annamalai Nagar,

Re-survey Nos. 10/1, 10/3/A, 3/1,

bottling.

(Shift-I)

S.S. Nagar Extn.,

3/2, 3/3, 3/3/B, 3/3/C, 3/3/D, 3/3/E,

150

Thondamanatham,

3/3/F, 3/3/G, 3/4/A, 3/4/B, 3/4/C,

(Shift-II).

Puducherry-605 502.

3/4/D, 3/4/E, 3/4/F,

Pathukannu To Sedarapet Road,

Villianur, Puducherry.

In conformity with rule 11 of the Pondicherry Commune Panchayats (Grant of Licences and Permissions)

Rules, 1976, promulgated in this Union Territory by the Puducherry Village and Commune Panchayats Act, 1973,

objections, if any, to the setting up of the above industry, are invited to reach the Commissioner, Villianur Commune

Panchayat within ten days from the date of publication of this notice in the Official Gazette.

The objections so received within the specified period will be considered by the Villianur Commune

Panchayat.

R. CARTIQUEYANE,

Commissioner.

AFFIDAVIT

I, Thirumular alias Kaushik, son of Nakeeran, aged

27 years, residing at No. 3, Thirumular Illam, 11th Cross

Street, Sudhagar Nagar, Reddiyarpalayam, Puducherry-

605 010, I am the citizen of India, do hereby solemnly

and sincerely affirm, and state on oath as follows:

That I am the deponent of this affidavit.

That my name has been recorded on my Birth

Certificate as ‘Thirumular @ Kaushik’, issued by

Pondicherry Municipality, Puducherry, under

Registration No. PM/M/1997/3409, dated 07-04-1997.

That my name has been recorded on my Nationality

Certificate is ‘Thirumular @ Kaushik’, issued by the

Taluk Office, Oulgaret, Department of Revenue and

Disaster

Management,

Puducherry,

bearing

Certificate No. PY/TOO/38/0059551, dated 04-08-2011.

That my name has been recorded on my Aadhaar

Card as ‘Thirumular alias Kaushik’, issued by Unique

Identification Authority of India, bearing No. XXXX

XXXX 7269 and also in my Employee’s Provident

Fund Organisation, bearing UAN No. 101516056088.

That my name has been recorded on my PAN Card

is ‘Thirumular alias Kaushik’ and as per the actual

record on PAN Database as ‘Nakeeran Thirumular

alias Kaushik’, issued by Income-tax Department

bearing No. BTRPT0846G.

That my name has been recorded on my Elector’s

Photo Identity Card as ‘Thirumular alias Kaushik’,

issued by Election Commission of India, bearing

No. UEB0117630.

That my name has been recorded on my Family

Ration Card as ‘]ÚJÈÏ (®) ÿÔ·E¬’, issued by the

Department of Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs,

Puducherry, bearing No. 143672.

That my name has been recorded on my Driving

Licence as ‘Thirumular alias Kaushik’, issued by

the Transport Department, Puducherry, bearing

DL No. PY01 20140002853.

That my given name has been recorded on my

Passport mentioned as given name as ‘Thirumular’

and surname is ‘Nakeeran’, issued by the Regional

Passport Office, Chennai, Republic of India, bearing

No. T5938908.

That my name has been recorded on my Secondary

School Leaving Certificate as ‘Thirumular @ Kaushik N,

issued by Secretary, State Board of School

Examinations (Sec), Tamil Nadu, under Certificate

Sl. No. SEC 2298758.

That my name has been recorded on my Higher

Secondary Course Certificate as ‘Thirumular @

Kaushik N’, issued by Secretary, State Board of

School Examinations (Hr.Sec.), Tamil Nadu, under

Certificate Sl. No. HSG 10122540.

359

14 May 2024]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

That my name has been recorded on my Degree

Certificate for Bachelor of Technology in Civil

Engineering issued by Pondicherry University,

Puducherry as ‘Thirumular @ Kaushik, N. and

‘Thirumular @ Kaushik.N’on all related University

Mark Sheets/Student Grade Report, issued by the

Vice-Chancellor and the Executive Council of the

Pondicherry University, Puducherry, bearing Serial

No. C28/19/005890.

That my name has been recorded on my Savings Bank

Account Passbook of Axis Bank as ‘Thirumular alias

Kaushik’, bearing Account No. XXXXXXXXXXX9874.

That I have changed my name as ‘Thirumular

Kaushik’on 29-04-2024.

Hence, I declare that all the above-mentioned

names as per the present records as ‘Thirumular @

Kaushik’, ‘Thirumular @ Kaushik N’, ‘Thirumular @

Kaushik.N’, ‘Thirumular @ Kaushik, N.’, ‘Thirumular

alias Kaushik’, ‘Thirumular Nakeeran’, ‘Nakeeran

Thirumular alias Kaushik’, ‘]ÚJÈÏ (®) ÿÔ·E¬’ and

‘Thirumular Kaushik are denoting one and same

person, they referring myself only.

I am executing this declaration to be submitting

to the concerned authorities for the change of name.

Hence, I hereby state that whatever is stated

herein above is true to the best of my knowledge.

Solemnly affirmed and signed before the Notary Public

at Puducherry, on this 29th day of April 2024.

562750

THIRUMULAR.

————

AFFIDAVIT

I, Sugumar, son of Sinnacannou (late), aged 49 years,

residing at No. 24, Second Floor, Old Market Street,

Mudaliarpet, Puducherry-605 004, India, do hereby

solemnly and sincerely affirm, and state on oath as

follows:

That I am the deponent herein and made this

affidavit on behalf of myself.

I state that my father’s name is entered as

‘Sinnacannou’ in my Aadhaar Card, issued by Unique

Identification Authority of India, bearing No. XXXX

XXXX 6543.

I state that my father’s name is entered as

‘Saccrabany’ in my Birth Certificate, issued by

Pondicherry Municipality, Puducherry, bearing

Registration No. PM/P/1975/003381.

I state that my father’s name is entered as

‘Chinnakannu’ in my Elector’s Photo Identity Card,

issued by Election Commission of India, bearing

No. UEB0136176.

I state that my father’s name is entered as

‘Sinnakannu’ in my Driving Licence, issued by

the Transport Department, Puducherry, bearing

DL No. PY01 20020002368.

I state that my father’s name is entered as

‘Sakkarapany’ in my Transfer Certificate, issued by

the Headmaster, Veeramamunivar Government High

School, Puducherry, bearing T.C.No. 199261.

I state that my father’s name is entered as

‘Saccrabany @ Sinnacannou’ in my Marriage

Certificate, issued by the Sub-Registrar, Oulgaret

Municipality, Puducherry, beaing S.M.No. 220521991.

I state that my father name is entered as

‘Sinnacannou Chetty alias Sacrabany’ in my father’s

Marriage Certificate, issued by the Registrar,

Pondicherry Municipality, Puducherry, beaing No. 1580.

I state that my father’s name is entered as

‘Sinnacannou’ in my father’s Aadhaar Card, issued

by Unique Identification Authority of India,

bearing No. XXXX XXXX 6428.

I state that my father’s name is entered as

‘Sinnacannou’ in my father’s Death Certificate, issued

by the Pondicherry Municipality, Puducherry,

bearing Registration No. PM/P/2023/01821.

Hence, I submit that these names described in the

above records as ‘Sinnacannou’, ‘Saccrabany’,

‘Chinnakannu’,

‘Sinnakannu’,

‘Sakkarapany’,

‘Saccrabany @ Sinnacannou’ and ‘Sinnacannou

Chetty alias Sacrabany’ are referring one and same

person i.e., my father’s name only.

The statements in the above paragraphs are true

to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Solemnly affirmed and signed before the Notary Public

at Puducherry, on this 27th day of April 2024.

562753

S SUGUMAR.

————

AFFIDAVIT

I, Kathayee, wife of Velmurugan, aged 48 years and

residing at Door No. 07, Pillaiyar Koil Street,

Thoothuponamoolai, Alathur, Neravy, Karaikal,

Puducherry Union Territoty-609 604, do hereby solemnly

and sincerely affirm to whomsoever it may concern as

follows:

360

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[14 May 2024

1. I state that my name has been entered as

‘ÔV›>Vl’ in my Birth Certificate vide No. 16/1, issued

by Registration Department, Thiruvarur, Government

of Tamil Nadu.

2. I state that my name is entered as ‘ÔV›>Vl’ in

my Transfer Certificate Record Sheet No. 1475,

issued by Panchayat Union Middle School,

Thiruvarur, Tamil Nadu.

3. I state that my name has been entered as

‘Kathayee’ in my Marriage Certificate No. 200715652,

issued by Registration Department, Karaikal.

4. I state that my name has been entered as ’

‘Gayathri’ in my Aadhaar Card No. XXXX XXXX

6227, issued by Unique Identification Authority of

India.

5. I state that my name has been entered as

‘Gayathiri’ in my Elector’s Photo Identity Card

No. NPX0105213, issued by the Election Commission

of India.

6. I state that my name has been entered as

‘ÔVB›ˆ’ in the Family Ration Card No. 430975,

issued by the Department of Civil Supplies and

Consumer Affairs, Karaikal.

7. I state that my name has been entered as

‘Gayathri V’ in my Bank Passbook vide Account

No. XXXXXXXXX1706, of Canara Bank.

8. I declare that all the abovesaid names viz.,

‘ÔV›>Vl’, ‘Kathayee’, ‘Gayathri’, ‘Gayathiri’,

‘ÔVB›ˆ and ‘Gayathri V’ are referring one and same

person, i.e., myself only.

9. The statements in the abovesaid paragraphs are

true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

10. I declare that what are all stated above is true

and there is no suppression or misrepresentation of

the facts.

Solemnly and sincerely affirmed, and signed before

the Notary Public at Puducherry, on this 3rd day of

May 2024.

562754 V. ÔVB›ˆ

ÔVB›ˆ

ÔVB›ˆ.

————

AFFIDAVIT

I, Sundararajan, son of Saranathan, Indian inhabitant,

aged 58 years and residing at the house bearing

Door No. 22, Ellaiyamman Vadambokki Street,

Thirumalairayanpattinam, Karaikal, Puducherry Union

Territory-609 606,India, do hereby solemnly and

sincerely affirm, to whomsoever it may concern as

follows:

That I am the deponent herein. I state that in my

Birth Certificate under Registration No.T/1965/00135,

my name has been mentioned as ‘Soundararadje’.

In my Transfer Certificate under Admission

No. U-22.875281, my name has been mentioned as

‘S. Sundaraj’.

In the Certificate under No. 993 of Community

Polytechnic, Nagapatinam, my name has been

mentioned as ‘Sundararaj .S’.

In my Aadhaar Card under No. XXXX XXXX

2206, my name has been mentioned as ‘∑Õ>Ï´V¤[’

and as ‘Sundararajan’.

In my Elector’s Photo Identity Card, under

No. NPX0203802, my name has been mentioned as

‘Sundarasan’ (‘∑Õ>Ï´Vƒ[’).

In my PAN Card, under No.GZBPS5546B, my name

has been mentioned as ‘S Sundararajan’.

In my Driving Licence under DL.No. PY02

20050001484, my name has been mentioned as

‘Sundarrajan S’.

In the particulars of members in the Family Ration

Card, under No. 211627, my name has been mentioned

as ‘∑Õ>´´V¤[’.

Therefore, I do hereby declare that all the

abovesaid names are referred, identified and relate

to one and the same person, that is me, the deponent

herein.

I state that hereafter, I shall be known and

identified only by the name as ‘S.Sundararajan

(ƒ. ∑Õ>Ï´V¤[)’ for all purposes.

I state that what are all stated in the abovesaid

paragraphs is true and correct to the best of my

knowledge, belief and information.

Solemnly and sincerely affirmed, and signed before

the Notary Public at Puducherry, on this 3rd day of

May 2024.

562755 S.SUNDARARAJAN.

————

AFFIDAVIT

I, Nithyapriya, wife of Alexander, residing at No. 11,

Fourth Cross Street, Thilagar Nagar, Thattanchavady,

Puducherry-605 009, do hereby solemnly and sincerely

affirm, and state on oath as follows:

That I am the deponent herein and I am well aware

of the facts of my deposition.

361

14 May 2024]

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

I state that my name is mentioned as

‘Nithyapriya’ in my Aadhaar Card No. XXXX XXXX

1553, issued by the Unique Identification Authority

of India.

I state that my name is mentioned as ‘Nithyapriya’

in my PAN Card No.ABTPN2848R, issued by the

Income-tax Department, Government of India.

I state that my name is mentioned as ‘Nithyapriya’

in my Savings Account Passbook No. XXXX XXXX

7961 of State Bank of India, Main Branch, Puducherry.

I state that my name is mentioned as ‘Nithyapriya’

. in my Elector’s Photo Identity Card No. UIJ0092346,

issued by the Election Commission of India.

I state that my name is mentioned as ‘Nithiya

Priya.S’ in my Office Record issued, by the Health

Department, Government of Puducherry.

I state that my name is mentioned as ‘W›]B∏ˆBV’

in the Family Ration Card No. 147119, issued by the

Department of Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs,

Puducherry.

Therefore, I do hereby declare that all the abovesaid

names are referred, identified and relating one and

the same person that is me, the deponent herein.

That the above particulars are true and correct to

the best of my knowledge and belief.

Solemnly affirmed and signed before the Notary Public

at Puducherry, on this 3rd day of May 2024.

562756 NITHYAPRIYA.

————

AFFIDAVIT

I, Nivya Mathew, wife of Jeet Daniel Varghese, aged

30 years and residing at No. 54, Ilango Adigal Salai,

Shanthi Nagar Extension, Lawspet, Puducherry-605 008,

do hereby solemnly and sincerely affirm, and state on

oath as follows:

That I am the deponent herein and I am well aware

of the facts of this deposition.

1. I state that my name is mentioned as ‘Nivya

Mathew’ in my Birth Certificate under Registration

No. 2664/93/5C, dated 01-10-1993, issued by Trichur

Municipality, Government of Kerala.

2. I state that my name is mentioned as ‘Nivya

Mathew’ in my Aadhaar Card No. XXXX XXXX 7980,

issued by Unique Identification Authority of India.

3. I state that my name is mentioned as ‘Nivya

Mathew’ in my PAN Card No. FNFPM1365D, issued

by Income-tax Department, Government of India

4. I state that my name is mentioned as ‘Nivya

Mathew’ in my Savings Bank Passbook Account

No. XXXXXX4457, issued by Central Bank, PIMS

Branch, Puducherry.

5. I state that my name is mentioned as ‘Nivya

Mathew’ in my Savings Bank Account Passbook

No. XXXXXXX2879, issued by State Bank of India,

JIPMER Branch, Puducherry.

6. I state that my name is mentioned as ‘Nivya

Mathew’ in my Driving Licence No. PY01 20120000214,

issued by Transport Department, Puducherry.

7. I state that my name is mentioned as ‘Nivya

Mathew’ in my Matriculation School Leaving

Certificate Register No. 914003, issued by State Board

of Matriculation & Anglo Indian School Leaving

Certificate Examinations, Tamil Nadu.

8. I state that my name is mentioned as ‘Nivya

Mathew’ in my Higher Secondary Course Certificate

Examination (Hr.Sec.) Tamil Nadu.

9. I state that my name is mentioned as ‘Nivya

Mathew’ in my MBBS Degree Certificate Registration

No. 11111066, issued by Jawaharlal Institute of

Postgraduate Medical Education and Research,

Government of India, Puducherry.

10. I state that my name is mentioned as ‘Nivya

Mathew’ in my Medical Registration Certificate

Registration No. 121945, issued by Tamil Nadu

Medical Council, Chennai.

11. I state that my name is mentioned as ‘Nivya

Mathew’ in my Additional Certificate of Registration

Addl Regn. No. RMC-25205, issued by Rajasthan

Medical Council, Jaipur.

12. I state that my name is mentioned as ‘Nivya

Mathew’ in my Provisional M.D. Certificate Roll.

No. 221284, issued by Rajasthan University of Health

Sciences, Jaipur.

13. I state that my name is mentioned as

‘Nivya Mathew’ in my Compulsory Rotatory

Internship Completion Certificate No. 11111066DEC161,

issued by JIPMER, Puducherry.

14. I state that my name is mentioned as ‘Nivya

Mathew’ in my Consolidated Statement of Marks

Registration No. 11111066, issued by JIPMER,

Puducherry.

15. I state that my name is mentioned as ‘Nivya

Mathew’ in my Marriage Certificate Registration

No. 9/2024, issued by Government of Kerala.

362

LA GAZETTE DE L’ETAT

[14 May 2024

online publication at “https://styandptg.py.gov.in”

Published by the Director, Government Press, Puducherry.

No legal responsibility is accepted for the publication of advertisement regarding change of names and other private

notifications in the Gazette. Persons notifying the same will remain solely responsible for the legal consequences and

also for any other misrepresentations, etc.

16. I state that my given name is mentioned as

‘Nivya’ and surname mentioned as ‘Mathew’ in my

Passport No. Y6399377, valid date 02-08-2033, issued

by Government of India.

17. I state that my name is mentioned as ‘Nivya’

in my Elector’s Photo Identity Card No. NOG0066365,

issued by Election Commission of India.

18. I state that my name is mentioned in the Family

Ration Card No. 156953 as ‘WÀBV º\›R’, issued by

the Department of Civil Supplies and Consumer

Affairs, Puducherry.

19. I state that my name is mentioned as ‘Mathew,

(Miss) Nivya’ in my Medical Registration Certificate

Reg. No. 46621, issued by Rajasthan Medical Council,

Jaipur.

I state that all my above names viz., ‘Nivya Mathew’,

‘Nivya’, ‘WÀBV º\›R’ and ‘Mathew, (Miss) Nivya’

are denoting one and the same person, they

referring myself only.

I declare that before my marriage, I used my

surname of my father’s name as ‘Mathew’ and after

marriage, I have changed and hereinafter, I shall use

my surname of my husband’s name as ‘Jeet Daniel’.

I state that hereinafter I will be writing and signing

my name as ‘Nivya Jeet Daniel’ on all records, papers

and all affairs of my life.

The above deposition is true and correct to the

best of my knowledge and belief, and nothing has

been concealed therein.

Solemnly affirmed and signed before the Notary Public

at Puducherry, on this 03rd day of May 2024.

562757

NIVYA.

————

AFFIDAVIT

I, Amsavardani Tayaar alias Padmini, daughter of

Sivakumar, aged 48 years, residing at No. 3, 8th Cross

Street, Ilango Nagar, Puducherry-605 011, do hereby

solemnly and sincerely affirm, to whomsoever it may

concern as follows:

1. I state that my name has been entered as

‘Amsavardani Tayaar alias Padmini’ in my Aadhaar

Card No. XXXX XXXX 7898, issued by Unique

Identification Authority of India.

2. I state that my name has been entered as

‘Amsavardani Tayaar alias Padmini’ in my PAN

Card vide No. APKPS8999H, issued by the Income-tax

Department, Government of India.

3. I state that my name has been entered as

‘Amsavardani Tayaar alias Padmini’ in my Birth

Certificate vide Registration No. PM/P/1975/005760,

issued by the Pondicherry Municipality, Puducherry.

4. I state that my name has been entered as

‘∂DƒkÏ]M >VBVÏ-√›tM’in the Family Ration

Card No. 069061, issued by the Department of Civil

Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Puducherry.

5. I state that my name has been entered as

‘Amsavardani Tayaar S’ in my HDFC Standard Life

Insurance Policy No. 13618501, issued by HDFC

Standard Life Insurance Company Limited.

6. I state that my name has been entered as

‘S Amsavardani Tayaar ’ in my old PAN Card

No. APKPS8999H, issued by the Income-tax

Department, Government of India.

7. Hence, I declare that all the above-mentioned

names viz., ‘Amsavardani Tayaar S’, ‘Amsavardani

Tayaar alias Padmini’ and ‘∂DƒkÏ]M >VBVÏ-

√›tM’are referring one and same person i.e.,

myself only.

8. Further, I declare that hereinafter, for all my

official and private purposes, I shall be called, known

and distinguished only by the name ‘Amsavardani

Tayaar alias Padmini’.

9. I declare that what are all stated above is true

and there is no suppression or misrepresentation of

the facts.

Solemnly and sincerely affirmed, and signed before

the Notary Public at Puducherry, on this 02nd day of

May 2024.

562758

PADMINI. S.