The Acting Chief Justice held that the Writ Petition challenging the petitioner's suspension is infructuous because his one-year term of appointment as Rojgar Sevak expired over five years prior to the order. The petition was dismissed accordingly.
Petition dismissed as infructuous; miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
Writ Petition No.19439 of 2010
ORDER:
The order of suspension of the petitioner is under challenge in this Writ Petition. The petitioner was appointed as Rojgar Sevak for a period of one year on a consolidated salary. The period of one year was from 05.03.2010 to 04.03.2011. While matters stood thus, he was placed under suspension. While the allegations in the Writ Petition, regarding the reasons for his suspension, are undoubtedly grave and serious, and may well have necessitated further examination, the fact remains that the period of appointment of the petitioner was only for one year which expired more than five years ago. Consequently, the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive, and the Writ Petition has become infructuous.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed as infructuous. The Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
_________________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ. Date:25.11.2016.
cs
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Writ Petition challenging the suspension order of a retired employee remains maintainable after the expiry of his term of appointment.
The Petitioner
The State / Respondent
RAMESH RANGANATHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
