P.Munusamy v. The Assistant Engineer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.08.2023 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI P.Munusamy ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District.
2.The Junior Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District.
3.The District Collector, Ostrlock Development Officer, Villupuram, Villupuram District.
... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondents, particularly the 1st respondent's impugned rejection order dated 10.03.2023, vide proceedings in Ka.No.cbrbgh-e-br1/6
nfh/f-m/No.43-2022?23 and quash the same and consequentially direct the respondents 1 and 2, particularly the 1st respondent for reinstatement of the petitioner's service.
For Petitioner : Mr.Thanjan For Respondents : Ms.S.B.Keerthana for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co [R1 & R2] Mr.M.S.Prem Kumar Government Advocate [R3] *****
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the respondents, particularly the first respondent's impugned rejection order dated 10.03.2023, vide proceedings in Ka.No.cbrbgh-e-br-nfh/fm/No.43-2022?23 and quash the same and consequentially direct the respondents 1 and 2, particularly the first respondent for reinstatement of the petitioner's service.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, he was working as Daily Wager in the respondent Board from 20.02.2003 for five years continuously upto 2008 and thereafter, he was suddenly disengaged by 2/6
the respondents and therefore, in order to get further engagement or permanent appointment, the petitioner had given several representations and last such representation was given on 19.12.2011 to the second respondent, and since the same was not considered by the respondents, the petitioner has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.6777 of 2012. This Court, by its order, dated 24.03.2021 disposed of the said writ petition directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.12.2011 and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law, pursuant to which, the present impugned order is passed. Challenging the same, the above writ petition has been filed.
3. Though very many grounds have been raised in this writ petition, however, at the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner restricted his prayer and sought permission of this Court to grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned authority either under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 or under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981.
3/6
4. On the above contention, this Court, heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the third respondent and perused the materials available on record.
5. Considering the limited relief sought for by the petitioner, this Court, without interfering with the impugned order, grants liberty to the petitioner to workout the remedy in the manner know to law.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed with the aforesaid liberty. There shall be no order as to costs. 14.08.2023 Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order sp 4/6
To 1.The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District.
2.The Junior Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District.
3.The District Collector, Ostrlock Development Officer, Villupuram, Villupuram District.
5/6
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
sp 14.08.2023 6/6