A.Parvathi, v. The Zonal Manager,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :12.11.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.THARANI W.A.(MD)No.1198 of 2019 and C.M.P.(MD)No.10347 of 2019 A.Parvathi ... Appellant/Writ Petitioner Vs.
1.The Zonal Manager, Southern Zonal Office, LIC Buildings, No.102, Anna Salai, Chennai.
2.The Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Jeevan Prakash, Bridge Station Road, Post Box No.16, Sellur, Madurai, Madurai District.
3.The Manager(P & IR) / DM, (Personnel & Industrial Relationship), LIC of India, Jeevan Prakash, Bridge Station Road, Post Box No.16 Sellur, Madurai, Madurai District.
4.The Senior Branch Manager, LIC of India, Branch Office, Mazid Road, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District. ... Respondents/Respondents 1/3
PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order made in W.P(MD)No.20941 of 2015 dated 28.06.2019 and to allow the above writ appeal by way of granting the relief sought for in the writ petition.
Prayer in WP(MD). 20941/ 2015 :
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 3rd respondent in Ref: P & IR dated 09.10.2015 and quash the same and direct the respondent to regularize the services of the petitioner with all consequential benefits.
For Appellant : Mr.A.D.Ganeshamoorthi For Respondents : Mr.C.Godwin
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of this Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.] Heard Mr.A.D.Ganeshamoorthi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr.C.Godwin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. The appellant filed the writ petition to quash the order passed by the third respondent dated 09.10.2015, rejecting the request made by the appellant/writ petitioner to regularise her services in the respondent Life Insurance Corporation of India. The appellant also sought for a consequential direction to regularise her services with all consequential benefits.
3. The appellant/writ petitioner's case is that she is engaged as a Scavenger in the respondent Corporation on daily wage basis since 1989 and she has been working in the said Post for more than 25 years and she possesses the requisite qualification for the said Post. With these facts, the appellant/writ petitioner wanted her services to be regularised. However, the third respondent rejected her claim and as against which, the writ petition has been filed.
4. In our considered view, the learned Single Bench was right in refusing to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to direct the respondents to regularise the services of the appellant/writ petitioner. If according to the appellant/writ petitioner there is a need for the said Post and the services of the petitioner is indispensable, then, the remedy for the appellant lies elsewhere and not by way of a writ petition. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Writ Court. 2/3
5. In the result, the writ appeal fails and is dismissed. However, this will not prevent the appellant from availing other alternative remedy that may be available to her under law. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (crl side) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) pm +1 CC to Mr.A.D. GANESHA MOORTHI, Advocate ( SR-97552[F] dated 12/11/2019 ) +1 CC to Mr.GODWIN, Advocate ( SR-97636[F] dated 12/11/2019 ) JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A.(MD)No.1198 of 2019 12.11.2019 VB(29.11.2019) 3P 3C 3/3