Madras High Court
Dr.Muthulakshmi vs The Director on 16 August, 2024
Author: Abdul Quddhose
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
W.P.(MD)No.20566 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 16.08.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P.(MD)No.20566 of 2021
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.17200 of 2021
Dr.Muthulakshmi : Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director,
Indian Medical Association of Homeopathy,
Arumbakkam,
Chennai.
2.The District Collector,
Sivagangai District,
Sivagangai.
3.The Dean,
Government Medical College and Hospital,
Sivagangai. : Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first and third
respondents to permit the petitioner to join duty with all attendant
benefits, on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated
24.10.2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.P.(MD)No.20566 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murugan
For Respondents : Mr.S.Kameswaran,
Government Advocate
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed for a Mandamus seeking
for a direction to the first and third respondents to permit the
petitioners to join duty with all attendant benefits based on the
petitioner's representation dated 24.10.2021.
2.The petitioner was appointed as an Ayush Doctor on
consolidated basis through a work allotment letter dated 24.07.2020.
Pursuant to the work allotment letter, the petitioner also joined duty
as an Ayush Doctor. The said appointment was made during the
Covid-19 period and the petitioner was admittedly appointed on
consolidated salary. The petitioner's service has been terminated by
the respondent and the petitioner had given a representation on
24.10.2021, to the first and third respondents, seeking for
reappointment and for payment of attendant benefits due to her.
According to the petitioner, since she availed maternity leave, she
was unable to attend work and only due to the said reason, she was
absent from duty. Therefore, the termination order issued by the
respondent is erroneous and under those circumstances, she had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
given the aforesaid representation seeking permission to re-join duty
and for payment of all attendant benefits.
3.It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned
Government Advocate appearing for the respondents that the
petitioner was appointed only on temporary basis and only on
payment of consolidated salary. Learned Government Advocate also
placed a work allotment letter dated 24.07.2020 issued in favour of
the petitioner by Five Star Man Power and Infra Services, Chennai,
an agent outsourced by the official respondents for the purpose of
employing Ayush Doctors during the Covid-19 period.
4.As seen from the said work allotment letter, it is clear
that the petitioner was appointed as an Ayush Doctor only on
temporary employment and was paid only a consolidated salary. It is
also made clear in the work allotment letter that the services of the
petitioner can be terminated by the respondents, if the petitioner is
found guilty of dishonest, disobedient, negligent or absent from the
duty, without any notice.
5.In the case on hand, the respondents have terminated the
services of the petitioner only on the ground that without seeking
permission of the official respondents, the petitioner had availed
leave. Learned Government Advocate also placed on record the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 21.01.2021
passed in W.P.(MD)No.19565 of 2020 in the case of G.V.Vairam
Santhosh Vs. Principal Secretary and another, relating to the
very same issue.
6.In the said case, a termination of similar appointment was
challenged and the Division Bench has held that the respondents
shall ensure that the recruitments are made only through the District
Societies. Admittedly, when the appointment of the petitioner is only
on temporary basis and only on payment of consolidated salary and
was made only during the Covid-19 period, on account of emergency,
the question of regularisation of the petitioner's services does not
arise. Further, since the Covid-19 period has already come to an end,
the petitioner cannot seek regularisation based on the work
allotment letter issued to her by a private agency, which made it
clear that the petitioner's appointment is only a temporary
appointment and the salary paid to him is only on a consolidated
basis. The Division Bench of this Court has also observed in a
decision relied upon by the learned Government Advocate appearing
for the respondents as referred to supra that appointment can be
made by the respondents only through the District Societies and not
through private agencies as was the case of the petitioner in the
instant case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7.Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that for
the period of the petitioner's absence, her salary was not paid by the
respondents.
8.For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this writ
petition with regard to the prayer of the petitioner for rejoining duty
as an Ayush Doctor, since her appointment was only on temporary
basis on payment of consolidated salary. But however, no prejudice
will be caused if the petitioner is allowed to give a representation to
the respondents seeking for payment of her salary which the
petitioner claims was not paid during her maternity period and a
direction is issued to the third respondent to consider the petitioner's
representation seeking for payment of her salary during the period of
her leave [maternity leave] on merits and in accordance with law
within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
9.In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of, by holding
that the petitioner is not entitled to rejoin duty as Ayush Doctor as
her appointment is only temporary and on consolidated payment.
But however, the petitioner is granted liberty to give representation
to the third respondent with regard to the alleged non-payment of
her salary and other benefits during the period of her maternity
leave when she was in employment within a period of one [1] week
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the
said representation, the third respondent is directed to consider the
same and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a
period of eight [8] weeks thereafter. There shall be no order as to
costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
16.08.2024
Index :Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
NCC : Yes/No
MR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Director,
Indian Medical Association of Homeopathy,
Arumbakkam,
Chennai.
2.The District Collector,
Sivagangai District,
Sivagangai.
3.The Dean,
Government Medical College and Hospital,
Sivagangai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
MR
16.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
