Dismissed

R.Mari v. the District Library Officer

Madras HC8 Aug 2017WA(MD)/868/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenged the dismissal of a petition seeking regularization of service and appointment in a regular post. The court held that the appellant, a part-time worker appointed in 1999, could not avail benefits under the relevant Government orders applicable to full-time temporary employees, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded.

R.Mari Vs the District Library Officer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.08.2017 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶4

W.A.(MD)No.868 of 2015

¶5

R.Mari

¶6

.. Appellant/Petitioner Vs.

¶7

1.The District Library Officer, Ramanathapuram District Library Office, Ramanathapuram District.

¶8

2.The Director of Public Libraries, Directorate of Public Libraries, Chennai – 2. .. Respondents/Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order passed in W.P.(MD).No.1115 of 2013 dated 03.01.2014.

¶10

Prayer in WP(MD). 1115/ 2013 :

¶11

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.1648/A/2012 dated 14.09.2012 by the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to regularize the continuous service of the petitioner about 13 yars and appoint him in the regular post with full time scale of pay in the office of the 1st respondent.

¶12

For Appellant : Mr.P.Natarajan For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen, Additional Government Pleader

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

¶15

[Judgment of the Court was delivered by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.]

¶16

The unsuccessful writ petitioner is on appeal challenging the order dated 03.01.2014 dismissing W.P.(MD).No.1115 of 2013.

¶17

2.According to the appellant he was appointed as a part time worker in the office of the Branch Library, Thiruppullani. He https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was getting consolidated pay. Since he had completed ten years of service, he sought regularisation. Since his request was not

¶18

¶19

considered, he moved this Court for directing the first respondent herein to pass orders on his representation. Purusant to the direction given by this Court in W.P.(MD).No.7674 of 2012, the first respondent passed the order dated 14.09.2012 rejecting his request. Hence, he filed W.P(MD).No1115 of 2013. The learned Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this writ appeal.

¶20

3.It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner was appointed only on 01.10.1999. Therefore, he could not invoke G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.02.2006. In any event, the writ petitioner was only doing work on part time basis. Only those temporary employees who worked full time and completed ten years of service were given benefit under G.O.Ms.No.22.

¶21

4.The writ petitioner is clearly not covered by any of the G.Os issued by the Government, granting regularisation. There is no merit in this writ appeal. Therefore, this writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(CSII)

¶24

/True Copy/

¶25

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

1.The District Library Officer, Ramanathapuram District Library Office, Ramanathapuram District.

¶28

2.The Director of Public Libraries, Directorate of Public Libraries, Chennai – 2.

¶29

+One cc to M/s.N.Tamilmani, Advocate, SR.No.71608

¶30

+One cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR.No.71677 dsk RL/5C/2P/MR/KKR/SAR1/29/8/2017

¶31

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

¶32

08.08.2017

R.Mari v. the District Library Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Mari v. the District Library Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thangamuthammal, Vs the Assistant Divisional

V.Mathiyas Vs the District Colletor

A.Sukumaran, Vs the District Collector

Natarajan Vs the Branch Manager

G.Chakkaravarthi, Vs the Directorate General of

A.Kaviyarasan, Vs the Director of Panchayat