Dismissed

C.Ravi v. The Commissioner

Madras HC6 Nov 2019WA(MD)/756/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed this writ appeal challenging an order refusing to permit the appellant to work as a temporary Ticket Seller. The court held that temporary employees cannot claim regularization as a right based on precedents involving other employees and found no ground to interfere.

What did the court decide?

Direction to permit the appellant to work as temporary Ticket Collector refused; writ appeal dismissed with no costs.

C.Ravi Vs The Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

W.A.(MD)No.756 of 2019

¶2

C.Ravi

¶3

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.11.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.THARANI W.A.(MD)No.756 of 2019

¶7

... Appellant/Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Commissioner,

¶10

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, No.91, Uthamar Gandhi Street, Nungampakkam,

¶11

Chennai-9.

¶12

2.The Joint Commissioner,

¶13

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, B1 Street, Ellis Nagar, Madurai-625 001.

¶14

3.The Executive Officer,

¶15

Arulmigu Suyambu Saneeswara Bhagawan Temple,

¶16

Kutchanur, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District.

¶17

..Respondents/Respondents

¶18

PRAYER : Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent Act, to allow the writ appeal and set aside the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.17147 of 2017, dated 13.03.2019 on the file of this Court.

¶19

Prayer in WP(MD). 17147/ 2017 :

¶20

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to permit the petitioner serve as the Ticket Seller in the temporary service until the post is sanctioned for regularization of the petitioner as per the submission recorded in W.A (MD)NO.120 of 2016 .

¶21

For Appellant : Mr.S.Louis For Respondents : Mr.V.P.Rajan

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

[Judgment of this Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. ]

¶24

Heard Mr.S.Louis, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.V.P.Rajan, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶25

This appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful writ petitioner challenging the order dated 13.03.2019.

¶26

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

¶27

1/2

¶28

W.A.(MD)No.756 of 2019

¶29

The writ petitioner sought for a direction to the respondent Temple to permit him to function as temporary Ticket Seller until the post is regularized by the Government or sanctioned by the Government. The petitioner seeks for such relief, based upon the orders passed by the Department in respect of other temple employees.

¶30

In our considered view, that cannot be a yardstick. The temporary employee employed on daily wages or consolidated fund cannot as a matter of right seek for regularization. Merely because few of them have been regularized, that cannot be treated as a precedent. Apart from that no such post can be granted. Hence, we cannot issue any direction, directing the respondent Temple to permit the appellant to work as temporary Ticket Collector. Therefore, we find no ground to interfere with the order passed in the writ petition. Accordingly, this writ appeal fails and the same stands dismissed. No costs.

¶31

// True Copy //

¶32

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶33

Ta TO

¶34

1.The Commissioner,

¶35

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, No.91, Uthamar Gandhi Street, Nungampakkam,

¶36

Chennai-9.

¶37

2.The Joint Commissioner,

¶38

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, B1 Street, Ellis Nagar, Madurai-625 001.

¶39

3.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Suyambu Saneeswara Bhagawan Temple, Kutchanur, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District.

¶40

+1 CC to M/s.V.P.RAJAN, Advocate ( SR-96806[F] dated 07/11/2019 )

¶41

+1 CC to M/s.S.LOUIS, Advocate ( SR-96814[F] dated 07/11/2019 )

¶42

ORDER MADE IN W.A.(MD)No.756 of 2019 06.11.2019

¶43

KM/(25.11.2019) 2P 6C

¶44

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

¶45

2/2

C.Ravi v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Ravi v. The Commissioner

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

Tvl.Sri Lakshmi Service Centre Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

S.a.Joy Raja Vs The District Collector

The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Vs Iniyavan

Devasagayam Chettiar Middle Vs M.C.C.Murugesan

R.K.Elango, Vs Insurance Regulatory and

The Government of Tamil Nadu Vs R.Perumal