Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2009
  6. /
  7. January

C.Tirumagal vs The District Superintending ...

Madras High Court|07 July, 2009

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service.
3. It has been stated that the petitioner had been appointed as a Technical Assistant in the year 1995, under the Division of Assistant Engineer, Village Roads, Quality Control Division, Salem. Her main duty as a Technical Assistant was to test the quality of the soil and to recommend the same for laying roads and to perform other clerical work. While so, in the month of July, 2000, she had been stopped from service, without affording any reasons being given and without any opportunity to put forth her case. In spite of several representations made by the petitioner, the respondents have failed to disburse the salary from the month of June, 1998 and there was no response from the respondents for the representations made by the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the petitioner had been appointed, temporarily, on daily wage basis, as and when there was work. Therefore, she has no right to claim any service benefits, as though she was a regular employee.
4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for granting the reliefs, as prayed for in the writ petition. The petitioner has not been in a position to show that she was employed on a regular basis, in accordance with the service rules applicable to her. Further, the petitioner has not been in a position to substantiate her claims by way of records. In such circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs.
Index:Yes/No 08-06-2009 Internet:Yes/No csh To
1.The District Superintending Engineer, Highways Village Roads, Salem.
2.The Chief Engineer, Highways and Rural Works Department, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
M.JAICHANDREN,J.
csh Writ Petition No.5939 of 2007 07-07-2009
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

C.Tirumagal vs The District Superintending ...

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
07 July, 2009