Dismissed¶35

Dinesh.G v. the Commissioner

Madras HC25 Sept 2025WP(MD)/4393/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench (Abdul Quddhose, J., 25.09.2025) in W.P.(MD) No.4393 of 2021: termination of consolidated-pay (non-permanent) temple Technical Assistant by HR&CE Executive Officer; delay and laches in filing writ petition in 2021 against 2019 termination order; no vested right to continuous employment for consolidated-pay employee; natural justice violation — allegations in termination order without hearing expunged even though writ dismissed; Article 226 certiorarified mandamus refused; Rs.15,000/- pm consolidated pay claimed in prayer.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no costs and connected miscellaneous petition dismissed; however, the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the impugned termination order dated 22.09.2019 stand expunged. ¶35

Dinesh.G Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the termination order dated 22.09.2019, filed only in 2021, should be entertained, having regard to the petitioner's consolidated-pay, non-permanent appointment and the delay in approaching the Court. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

An employee appointed on consolidated pay basis, admittedly not permanent, has no vested right to claim continuous employment in the temple.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

Representations allegedly made to the respondents between 2019 and 2021 do not suffice to condone the delay in immediately approaching the Court.

¶25

Key takeaways

Interfering with the impugned termination order of 2019 in the year 2025 does not arise, since the petitioner was appointed only on consolidated pay basis.ratio¶31
Allegations cannot be made against an employee without granting an opportunity to explain his innocence; accordingly, although the writ petition was not entertained, the Court expunged the allegations made against the petitioner in the impugned order.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a Technical Assistant appointed on consolidated pay basis by a temple administered under the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, challenging his termination by order dated 22.09.2019 which contained allegations against him; the writ petition was filed only in 2021. HELD: (i) an employee on consolidated pay basis, admittedly not permanent, has no vested right to continuous employment; (ii) interim representations made between 2019 and 2021 do not condone the delay in approaching the Court, and interference with a 2019 termination in 2025 does not arise; (iii) nevertheless, allegations recorded in the termination order without affording the petitioner any opportunity to explain his innocence offend natural justice and stand expunged. Writ petition dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition dismissed; no costs. (Abdul Quddhose, J.)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.4393 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 25.09.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.4393 of 2021 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD) No.3544 of 2021

G.Dinesh

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Commissioner Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department Nungambakkam Chennai-600 034

¶12

2.The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department Thanjavur

¶13

3.The Executive Officer A/m.Mullaivananathar Temple Thirukkarugavur Pabanasam Taluk Thanjavur District-614 302 ... Respondents

¶14

_____________ Page 1 of 6_

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

W.P.(MD) No.4393 of 2021

¶17

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned communication of 3^rd respondent dated 22.09.2019 along with his resolution, informing oral termination of petitioner's service by the 2^nd respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to permit the petitioner herein to continue his work as Technical Assistant in the 3^rd respondent temple in the same consolidated pay of Rs.15,000/- pm. with arrears of pay from July 2019 without any further delay.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Vadivel For Respondents : Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader for R1 & R2 Mr.A.David Oliver for Mr.V.Chandrasekar Standing Counsel for 3rd Respondent

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 22.09.2019, passed by the third respondent – Temple, terminating the services of the petitioner.

¶21

Page 2 of 6

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

W.P.(MD) No.4393 of 2021

¶24

2. The petitioner was appointed on consolidated pay basis by the third respondent – Temple as a Technical Assistant. Admittedly, his appointment is not a permanent appointment. The third respondent, under the impugned order dated 22.09.2019, has terminated the services of the petitioner by making allegations against him, which, according to him, are false. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order, on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. Since the petitioner has not been afforded any opportunity of hearing before terminating his services, he has filed this writ petition.

¶25

3. Being an employee appointed on consolidated pay basis, the petitioner does not have any vested right to claim that he has to be in continuous employment in the third respondent – Temple. Further, the impugned order passed by the third respondent is dated 22.09.2019, but the petitioner has chosen to file this writ petition only in the year 2021. Though the petitioner may claim that he has been making several representations to the respondents between 2019 and 2021, that would not suffice for condoning the delay in immediately approaching this Court, that too when he was appointed by the third respondent – Temple only on consolidated pay basis

¶26

_____________ Page 3 of 6_

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

W.P.(MD) No.4393 of 2021

¶29

and was admittedly not a permanent employee. However, the allegations made against the petitioner in the impugned order cannot be made without granting any opportunity for the petitioner to explain his innocence.

¶30

4. Even though this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition for the aforesaid reasons, as admittedly the petitioner was appointed only on consolidated pay basis, this Court has to expunge the allegations made against the petitioner in the impugned order, as the same were made without granting any opportunity for the petitioner to submit his explanation by pleading innocence.

¶31

5. Since the petitioner was appointed only on consolidated pay basis and the impugned termination order came to be passed in the year 2019, the question of interfering with the impugned order terminating the petitioner's services in the year 2025 does not arise. However, the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the impugned termination order dated 22.09.2019, passed by the third respondent, stand expunged.

¶32

Page 4 of 6

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.P.(MD) No.4393 of 2021

¶35

6. In the result, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.

¶36

25.09.2025

¶37

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶38

krk

¶39

To:

¶40

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.

¶41

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department, Thanjavur.