Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2367 (MAD)

Sundaram v. District Collector, Coimbatore

2022-07-27

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the record of the 5th respondent dated 10.3.2014 made in Na.Ka.No.52/2014 and quash the same to direct the 5th espondent to reinstate the petitioner with back wages.) 1. The order dated 10.03.2014 issued by the 5th respondent, discharging the services of the writ petitioner is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner states that he was appointed as Ticket Clerk (II) or Additional Ticket Clerk on 01.09.2010 under the 5th respondent control for a salary of Rs.150/- per day. Admittedly, the writ petitioner was engaged as daily wage employee in Patteeswarar Swami Temple. 3. The grievances of the writ petitioner is that he was discharged from service on an allegation that he had not attended duty for three days and tampered the attendance Register by marking as if the petitioner was on deputation or other duty. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner was working as a daily wage employee and on that particular day, he was deputed to work as Driver for Special Officer of District Revenue Officer / Second respondent at Coimbatore and he worked as such. The petitioner states that he was on deputation to work as Driver to the Special Officer of District Revenue Officer and therefore, the absence marked was not correct. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the reason for terminating the services of the writ petitioner is improper and no enquiry in this regard was conducted. Thus, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. 6. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent made a submission that the writ petitioner was not even appointed by the competent authority. No order of appointment was issued. The writ petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis by his own father-in-law, who was the erstwhile Trustee of the Temple. The petitioner continued as such and at one point of time, he tampered the attendance register and by citing the said reason, he was not allowed to continue as daily wage employee in the Temple. Thus, there is no irregularity in respect of the action initiated by the respondents and the writ petition is to be rejected. 7. The petitioner continued as such and at one point of time, he tampered the attendance register and by citing the said reason, he was not allowed to continue as daily wage employee in the Temple. Thus, there is no irregularity in respect of the action initiated by the respondents and the writ petition is to be rejected. 7. The counter filed by the Assistant Commissioner / Executive Officer / 5th respondent reveals that the petitioner was not appointed by the competent authority. No order of appointment was issued in accordance with the rules in force. Based on the Resolution and to conduct the Festival of Kumbabishegam, the petitioner was appointed as Ticket Clerk by the then Trustee on temporary basis. At the time of temporary appointment during the year 2010, one of the Trustee was none other than the father-in-law of the petitioner. The petitioner is having a driving license and he was orally requested to act as a Driver to the District Revenue Officer (Temple lands) by the then Temple Administrators. No final order has been issued and the Commissioner also has not granted any sanction to the writ petitioner to act as a Driver. The petitioner without intimation, has not reported to duty and therefore, no wages was granted. The petitioner tampered the attendance register and made an entry as if he was on deputation duty at District Revenue Office. In view of the said misbehaviour, the petitioner was discharged from his engagement as a daily wage employee. 8. This Court is of the considered opinion that daily wage employees cannot claim any right for continuance. As per the counter affidavit, the petitioner was engaged at the time of Kumbabishegam Festival and for the purpose of issuing tickets to the devotees. Thus, he was engaged for a specific purpose during the festival of Kumbabishegam. Thereafter, he was allowed to continue as daily wage employee. Daily wage employee has no right to claim any right in respect of appointment or continuance of service. That apart, the petitioner was engaged by his own father-in-law, who was the erstwhile Trustee of the Temple. 9. This being the factum, the petitioner has no right to claim any right in respect of his appointment or his continuance as daily wage employee. In the absence of any right, the relief sought for the continuance of the writ petitioner in service cannot be granted. 9. This being the factum, the petitioner has no right to claim any right in respect of his appointment or his continuance as daily wage employee. In the absence of any right, the relief sought for the continuance of the writ petitioner in service cannot be granted. However, if at all the services of the writ petitioner is required on temporary basis or daily wage basis, it is for the administration to take a decision in accordance with law. 10. With these observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.