Muthu Manikandan, v. The District Collector,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27.08.2018

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM W.A.No.1791 of 2018 and CMP.No.14519 of 2018 Muthu Manikandan ..Appellant / Petitioner Vs 1.The District Collector Thiruvannamalai 2.The Director O/o.Directorate Office Rural and Development Department Panagal Building, Saidapet Chennai.

3.The Assistant Director (Panchayat) Rural and Development Department Thiruvannamalai Taluk 4.The Block Development Officer Thiruvannamalai Panchayat Union Office Thiruvannamalai Town

...Respondents / Respondents

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 09.04.2018 made in W.P.No.8320 of 2018. W.P.No.8320 of 2018 Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a writ of Mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service together continuity of service with all attendant benefits based on the petitioners representation dt 28.2.2018

For Appellant : Mr.Palani For Respondents : Mr.P.S.Siva Shanmuga Sundaram Special Government Pleader for R1 to R4.

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by HULUVADI G.RAMESH,J.) Heard both sides.

2. The Petitioner was appointed as Part-Time Panchayat Clerk on 13.07.1997, however, his service was terminated on 05.02.2002. It is seen that the appellant/Writ Petitioner has sent representations for about 15 years, but he had neither challenged the termination of his service nor initiated any action for the past about 15 years.

3. The grounds raised by the appellant/Writ Petitioner is that he has not been communicated and not served with any termination order as per the records and documents and further the resolution passed by the Panchayat was not communicated to him.

4. While being out of service for more than 15 years and not chosen to challenge the termination order, rightly, the learned Single Judge has rejected the Writ Petition. Any amount of pleading of the appellant/Writ Petitioner would not bring any solace to the appellant/Writ Petitioner for consideration of his prayer seeking to reinstate him in service. We find no scope to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 09.04.2018. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector Thiruvannamalai

2.The Director O/o.Directorate Office Rural and Development Department Panagal Building, Saidapet Chennai.

3.The Assistant Director (Panchayat) Rural and Development Department Thiruvannamalai Taluk 4.The Block Development Officer Thiruvannamalai Panchayat Union Office Thiruvannamalai Town +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.58824 +1cc to Mr.S.Sugendran, Advocate, S.R.No.59240(09/10/2018) W.A.No.1791 of 2018 RSI(CO) GSP(25/09/2018)