Dismissed

R.Manahavala Perumal v. State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC27 Jul 2015WA/1028/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ appeal challenging an order that rejected a petition seeking regularization of the appellant's service as a System Analyst. The court held the appellant was not entitled to absorption and denied the prayer for stay of the operative order.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed, the incidental prayer for stay was denied, and connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

R.Manahavala Perumal Vs State of Tamilnadu — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated: 27.07.2015 Coram: The Hon'ble Mr.Justice SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI and The Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.VENUGOPAL W.A.No.1028 of 2015 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015

¶3

R.Manahavala Perumal ..Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
1. State of Tamilnadu
Rep. By its Secretary,
Municipal Administration and
Water Supply Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009
2. The Director of Municipal Administration
“Ezhilagam” Annexe Building
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005
3. The Commissioner
Tirunelveli City Municipal
Corporation, Tirunelveli. ..Respondents / Respondents

¶4

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent Appeal to set aside the Order dated 05.06.2015 made in W.P.No.370 of 2015 and M.P.No.3 of 2015 in W.P.No.16323 of 2015 dated 10.06.2015. Petitions praying that in these circumstances stated therein and in the respective affidavits filed therewith the High court will be pleased to

¶5

To stay the operation of the order passed by the 1st Respondent in letter No.(2d)Nos., dt.02/02/2015 (in M.P.3/2015) pending disposal of the above writ petition 16323/2015.

¶6

W.P. 16323/2015 filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records culminating in the impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent in Lr.No.(2D) No.8, dt.02.02.2015 and quash the same as null and void and regularise the service of the petitioner as system analyst under the 2nd Respondent.

¶7

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶8

For Appellant : Mr.T.T.Ravichandran For Respondents: Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram Special Government Pleader

¶9

JUDGMENT

¶10

[Judgment of the Court was Delivered By

¶11

M.VENUGOPAL, J.]

¶12

The Appellant / Petitioner has preferred the present instant Writ Appeal as against the Order dated 10.06.2015 in M.P.No.3 of 2015 in W.P.No.16323 of 2015 passed by the Learned Single Judge in dismissing the Petition.

¶13

It is not in dispute that the Appellant/Petitioner as an Assistant was employed in the 3^rd Respondent/Tirunelveli City Municipal Corporation. Also, that he was sent on Deputation to the 2^nd Respondent/Office of the Director of Municipal Administration, Chennai – 5, to the post of 'System Analyst', after lapse of Deputation period, the Appellant was to the parent Department. In fact, this Court had dismissed the Writ Appeal No.1027 of 2015 filed by the Appellant as against the Order dated 05.06.2015 in W.P.No.370 of 2015 passed by the Learned Single Judge.

¶14

In the instant case, the Appellant was recruited to the post of 'System Analyst' in the office of the 2^nd Respondent through appointment by means of Deputation. Further, the Appellant cannot seek absorption in the 2^nd Respondent's office as 'System Analyst' either as a matter of right or routine. Moreover when this Court had dismissed the Writ Appeal No.1027 of 2015 filed by the Appellant/Petitioner as against the Order dated 05.06.2015 in W.P.No.370 of 2015 passed by the Learned Single Judge, this Court is of the considered view that the Appellant / Petitioner is not entitled to seek relief of Stay of the Operation of the Order passed by the 1^st Respondent in Letter No.(2D) No.8 dated 02.02.2015 in M.P.No.3 of 2015 pending disposal of the W.P.No.16323 of 2015.

¶15

Viewed in that perspective, the Writ Appeal fails. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶16

Sd/Asst.Registrar (CS III )

¶17

/true copy/

¶18

Sub Asst. Registrar

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

ssd

¶21

¶22

The Secretary,
Muncipal Administration and
Water Supply Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009
2. The Director of Municipal Administration
“Ezhilagam” Annexe Building
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005
3. The Commissioner
Tirunelveli City Municipal
Corporation, Tirunelveli.
W.A.No.1028 of 2015 and
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015
km(co)
kra( 18/08)

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

R.Manahavala Perumal v. State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Manahavala Perumal v. State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.M.Duraisamy Vs the State of Tamilnadu

The Assistant Commissioner Ct Vs Tvl.Lanco Infractech Ltd.

The Secretary to Govt., Vs M. Sivagnana Sambandam

Mr.B.Udhayakumar Vs Mr.M.Vijayalakshmi

S.Mathaiyan, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

S.Ragavendran, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer