Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 642 (MAD)

N. Muthuraman v. Secretary to Government

2016-02-18

A.SELVAM

body2016
ORDER : This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records from the third respondent in his proceedings passed in Na.Ka.No.C1/1029/07 dated 25.04.2007 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in regular pay scale. 2. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner has been appointed as a watchman in Rajapalayam Municipality on 01.11.1993 and since then he has done his service. In the year 1997, the third respondent without giving prior notice has abruptly and orally terminated the petitioner and subsequently the petitioner has given a representation to the third respondent, wherein the third respondent has passed the impugned order dated 25.04.2007 and in order to quash the same, the present petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has repeatedly contended that the petitioner has joined as watchman in third respondent viz., Rajapalayam Municipality on 01.11.1993 and since then he has done his duty and the third respondent has given proper salary to the petitioner and in pursuance of his service, Service Register has also been opened in the name of the petitioner and in the year 1997, the third respondent has orally terminated service of the petitioner and oral termination is not permissible under law and under the said circumstances the impugned order passed by the third respondent is liable to be quashed. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent has contended that the petitioner has been appointed as watchman on 01.11.1993 and served in the same post till 31.01.1997 and after 31.01.1997 he has failed to report his duty and under the said circumstances the third respondent has passed the impugned order and therefore the impugned order passed by the third respondent does not call for any interference and further the petitioner has been appointed on daily wage basis. 5. On the basis of the rival submissions made on either side, the Court has to look into as to whether the petitioner has been regularly appointed as a watchman? In fact this Court has perused the entire documents filed on the side of the petitioner and no document says that the petitioner has got regular appointment. 5. On the basis of the rival submissions made on either side, the Court has to look into as to whether the petitioner has been regularly appointed as a watchman? In fact this Court has perused the entire documents filed on the side of the petitioner and no document says that the petitioner has got regular appointment. The consistent case putforth on the side of the third respondent is that the petitioner has served upto 31.01.1997 on the basis of daily wages. 6. Even though it has been contended on the side of the petitioner that in pursuance of his service a Service Register has been opened, no materials are available for the purpose of proving the same. It is true that in the Muster Roll, the name of the petitioner is found place. Simply because in Muster Roll, the name of the petitioner is found place, the Court cannot come to a conclusion that the petitioner has been appointed on regular basis. 7. Considering the fact that after 31.01.1997 the petitioner has not served under the control of the third respondent and also considering that the petitioner has served under the third respondent only on the basis of daily wages, the Court cannot come to a conclusion that the order passed by the third respondent is illegal and altogether the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. In fine, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.