P. Chandran v. The District Collector,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 14.10.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE P.Chandran ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector, Kanniyakumari District, at Nagercoil.

2.The President, Ayyacode Village Panchyat, Cehrrupal Post, Kanniyakumari-161.

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records dated 30.10.2020 on the file of the second respondent herein and to quash the same as illegal and null and void and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the same post with all the attendant benefits since 12.08.2012. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Anbrasu For Respondents : Mr.A.Baskaran, Additional Government Pleader 1/5

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 30.10.2020 passed by the second respondent rejecting the petitioner's request to reinstate the petitioner in the same post with all attendant benefits since 12.08.2012.

2. The petitioner claims that he was employed with the respondent Panchayat on daily wage basis, but was removed from service since 12.08.2012. The petitioner claims that he was removed from service since a criminal case was pending against him. The petitioner now claims that the said criminal case has ended in acquittal, as per the judgment passed by the Criminal court on 19.10.2020 in C.C.No.744 of 2018, which has also been placed on record. However, as seen from the documents filed along with this writ petition as well as from the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, there has been no correspondence between the petitioner and the respondents from 12.08.2012 till 28.10.2020, when the petitioner has given the first representation subsequent to the judgment passed by the Criminal Court dated 19.10.2020 acquitting the petitioner. The petitioner is now aged about 49 years. The petitioner has also not been working since 12.08.2012. The first 2/5

representation was given by the petitioner only on 28.10.2020, after a lapse of more than seven years from the date when the petitioner claims that he was removed from service on account of the pendency of the criminal case.

4. A counter-affidavit has also been filed by the second respondent.

5. The second respondent has also claimed that the second respondent Panchayat is a small panchayat and when the petitioner was removed from service, there was no necessity for them to replace him with another worker. The second respondent has also stated that the earlier appointment order of the petitioner was improper as he was appointed only by the Block Development Officer and therefore, according to the second respondent, even the earlier appointment of the petitioner was illegal.

6. Without going into the merits of the matter, this Court, only on the ground of laches on the part of the petitioner for not having made any representation to the respondents from the date of his removal from service for more than seven years, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. 3/5

7. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. 14.10.2025 NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no TSG To 1.The District Collector, Kanniyakumari District, at Nagercoil.

2.The President, Ayyacode Village Panchyat, Cehrrupal Post, Kanniyakumari-161.

4/5

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

TSG 14.10.2025 5/5