Dismissed

A. Bharath Kumar v. the President

Madras HC17 Mar 2021WA(MD)/1041/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ appeal challenging the dismissal of a writ petition seeking reinstatement as a pump operator, the Madurai Bench held that the petitioner failed to exhaust the alternative statutory remedy available for challenging his removal from service. The court dismissed the appeal due to laches and delay exceeding one year.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal stands dismissed with no costs.

A. Bharath Kumar Vs the President — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.A(MD)No.1041 of 2012

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 17.03.2021

¶4

CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL

¶6

W.A(MD)No.1041 of 2012

¶7

A.Bharath Kumar

¶8

... Appellant/Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The President,

¶11

South Veerapandiapuram Panchayat, South Veerapandiapuram, Tuticorin – 628 002.

¶12

2.A.Ramesh ... Respondents/Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order, dated 02.11.2012 made in W.P(MD)No.14049 of 2012 on the file of this Court.

¶14

Prayer in WP(MD). 14049 of 2012 :

¶15

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of the writ by calling for the records relating to the Resolution NO.35 dated : 17.5.120 removing the petitioner from the services as the Pump operator of the first respondent and appointing the second respondent herein as its pump operator for T.Kumaragiri Water Tank, maintained by the 1st respondent and to quash the same and consequently to direct the 1st respondent to reinstate the petitioner in its services as the pump operator for T.Kumaragiri Water Tank, with all the monetary benefits and other service benefits with effect from 17.5.2010.

¶16

For Appellant : Mrs.P.Jessi Jeeva Priya for Mr.G.Aravinthan For R – 1 : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu For R – 2 : No appearance

¶17

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

¶18

1/3

¶19

W.A(MD)No.1041 of 2012

¶20

JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.)

¶21

The appellant, who was the writ petitioner, has filed the above Writ Appeal challenging the order of dismissal in W.P(MD)No.14049 of 2012, dated 02.11.2012, wherein, the appellant had challenged the Resolution No.35, dated 17.05.2010, by which, the appellant was removed from service as a Pump Operator of the first respondentPanchayat and the second respondent-Ramesh was appointed in his place.

¶22

2.It is seen that the appellant had suffered an electrical shock and he was unable to report to work and had given a leave letter on 10.11.2009. Thereafter, there was no response. As the pump operator was doing essential service to the Village, the second respondent was appointed by the Panchayat Union. Even after the resolution was passed and the second respondent was appointed as the pump operator in the place of the appellant, instead of challenging that, the appellant had produced a medical certificate, dated October, 2010 and sought for reinstating him. When there was no response, he gave a representation on 19.12.2011, which itself is after more than a year.

¶23

3.It is not out of place to mention that his removal from service is appealable and without exhausting the alternative remedy, once again, after a lapse of one year, in October, 2012, the appellant has moved this Court to quash the Resolution, dated 17.05.2010. There is no reason mentioned for the delay and laches on the part of the appellant for approaching this Court belatedly, even presuming that the Writ Petition was maintainable. Therefore, the learned Single Judge had rightly dismissed the Writ Petition, as the appellant had not exhausted the alternative statutory remedy available to him. We are also of the same opinion and there is no reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.

¶24

Sd/Assistant Registrar(Records)

¶25

// True Copy //

¶26

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶27

¶28

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

¶29

2/3

¶30

W.A(MD)No.1041 of 2012

¶31

Note :

¶32

In view of the present lock down owing to COVID19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.

¶33

+1 CC to M/s.G.THALAIMUTHARASU, Advocate ( SR-12310[F] dated 18/03/2021 )

¶34

+1 CC to M/s.P.JESSI JEEVA PRIYA, Advocate ( SR-12316[F] dated 18/03/2021 )

¶35

W.A(MD)No.1041 of 2012 17.03.2021

¶36

PM(CO) TR(29.03.2021) 3P 3C

¶37

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

¶38

3/3

A. Bharath Kumar v. the President

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Bharath Kumar v. the President

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

B.Saraswathy Amma Vs the District Collector

Yasotha, Vs Maruthappan @ Maruthamalai

Secretary Vs John Paul Louis

S.Sailaja Vs S.Muthulakshmi

Esakki Priya Vs Veeramanikandan

Umamaheswari, Vs S.Hemandh, S/O.P.Subramanian