Dismissed

R.Manahavala Perumal v. State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC5 Jun 2015WP/370/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a relief order passed against a deputation employee who sought permanent absorption. The court held the petitioner had no right to absorption as he held a lower post in the parent department. The impugned relief order was upheld.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; impugned order of 05.01.2015 upholding petitioner's relief from deputation post.

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 : 05.06.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

¶5

Writ Petition No.370 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶6

R.Manahavala Perumal ... Petitioner

¶7

vs.

¶8

1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶9

2.The Director of Municipal Administration,

¶10

Ezhilagam, Annexe Building, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

¶11

3.The Commissioner, Tirunelveli City Municipal Corporation, Tirunelveli -1. ... Respondents

¶12

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of Certiorarified mandamus, to call for the order passed by the 2nd respondent in R.O.C.No.64964/2006/IT-1 dated 05.01.2015 and quash the same as null and void and consequently forbearing the 2nd respondent from relieving the petitioner pending consideration of the proceedings in ROC No.64964/2006-IT-1 dated 10.09.2011, 29.09.2011 and 13.12.2013 for absorbing the petitioner in permanent post in the 2nd respondent office.

¶13

For Petitioner : Ms.D.Geetha

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.S.Gunasekaran

¶15

Government Advocate for R1 and R2 Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandian Additional Advocate General Asst. by Ms.P.Rajalakshmi for R3

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioner was working as an Assistant in Tirunelveli Corporation viz., the third respondent herein. Thereafter, he was appointed as System Analyst in the 2nd respondent office on deputation basis. The deputation period expired on 05.02.2011. However, he has been allowed to continue in the post of System Analyst beyond the deputation period. While so, the second https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent passed the impugned order dated 05.01.2015 relieving the

¶18

petitioner from the office of the second respondent so as to join in the parent department. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the aforesaid order dated 05.01.2015.

¶19

While ordering notice of motion, this Court granted interim stay. A counter affidavit is filed by the second respondent.

¶20

Heard both sides.

¶21

The petitioner sought permanent absorption in the office of the second respondent. The second respondent sent proposals to the first respondent Government for permanent absorption as well as for extension of deputation, in the mean time. But the Government, by Letter No.(2D) No.8, dated 02.02.2015 rejected the said proposal.

¶22

In view of the order passed by the Government, the second respondent has no option but to relieve the petitioner from the post of System Analyst. The petitioner has chosen to challenge the order of the second respondent. But there is subsequent order of the Government dated 02.02.2015 as stated above.

¶23

I am of the view that the petitioner as a matter of right cannot ask for absorption in the second respondent office as System Analyst, while he was sent on deputation from Tirunelveli Corporation. In Tirunelveli Corporation, he was working as Assistant. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the order dated 05.01.2015 of the second respondent, particularly, when the Government passed an order dated 02.02.2015 rejecting the proposal of the second respondent.

¶24

The writ petition fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

True Copy

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

svki

¶30

¶31

1.State of Tamil Nadu, Secretary Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶32

2.The Director of Municipal Administration, Ezhilagam, Annexe Building, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

¶33

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

¶34

3.The Commissioner, Tirunelveli City Municipal Corporation, Tirunelveli -1.

¶35

1 cc to Ms.D.Geetha , Advocate Sr.No.27221/2015

¶36

1 cc to Ms.P.Rajalakshmi , Advocate Sr.No.27662/2015

¶37

1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.No.27185/15

¶38

W.P.No.370 of 2015

¶39

kgk(co) pmk.22.6.2015

¶40

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

P.Dhasan S/O.Pudhaliya Vs the Phanindhra Reddy, IAS

P.Revathi Vs Saikumar

R.Ram Kumar, Vs the State of Tamilnadu

V.Yuvaraj Prasanna Vs The Secretary to Government

K.Srinivasan Vs The Secretary to Government

A.Nepoleon, Vs The Secretary to Government