Madras High Court
M.Sivakumar vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 2 January, 2024
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
Writ Appeal No.2412 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 02.01.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
Writ Appeal No.2412 of 2019
and C.M.P.No.15833 of 2019
1. M.Sivakumar
2. A.Venkatesan
3. P. Vivekananadan ... Appellants
Vs
1. Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
Health and Family Welfare Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Project Director,
Tamil Nadu State Aids Control Society,
No.471, Pantheon Salai, Egmore,
Chennai – 600 008.
3. The Deputy Director of Health Service/Honorary
Secretary of District Aids Prevention and Control Unit
Dharmapuri District.
4. The Deputy Director of Health Service/Honorary
Secretary of District Aids Prevention and Control Unit
Thiruvannamalai District.
5. The Deputy Director of Health Service/Honorary
Secretary of District Aides Prevention and Control Unit,
Namakkal District. .. Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1/8
Writ Appeal No.2412 of 2019
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, to set
aside the order dated 04.04.2019 made in W.P.No.33651 of 2018.
For Appellants : Mr.P.Ganesan
For Respondents : Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar
Special Government Pleader
[R1, R3, R4 and R5]
: Mrs.C.N.G.Niraimathi
Standing Counsel [R2]
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR,J.)
This Writ Appeal has been directed against the order passed by the
Writ Court dated 04.04.2019 made in W.P.No.33651 of 2018.
2. The appellants were the writ petitioners, who had been
temporarily appointed as drivers by the proceedings of the Honorary
Secretary, Indian Red Cross Society, Dharmapuri District dated
14.11.2007 and accordingly they have been continued as temporary
drivers in that Society. That Society become the Tamil Nadu State Aids
Control Society being the second respondent herein, before whom these
writ petitioners' made a plea to regularize their services as permanent
drivers, which plea since has not been considered, as their representation
dated 30.11.2018 was not considered and no orders have been passed,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
they approached the Writ Court by filing the writ petition seeking for a
writ of mandamus.
3. The learned Judge, who heard the writ petition was pleased to
dismiss the said writ petition by impugned order dated 04.04.2019.
Assailing the same, Mr.P.Ganesan, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants though made an attempt to seek indulgence of this Court to
interfere with the order impugned, insofar as the prayer sought for by the
appellants before the Writ Court seeking writ of mandamus by invoking
the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution against the second respondent being a Society was
questioned.
4. In this context, it is to be noted that judgments have already
been made by this Court declaring that the second respondent Society is
not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution amenable
to writ jurisdiction.
5. When that being so, basically the writ petition cannot be
entertained and therefore, the order passed by the Writ Court cannot be
found fault with even otherwise.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. When that being so, when this was specifically asked
Mrs.C.N.G.Niraimathi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
second respondent Society, in her reply stated that, in as much as there
has been a need of the Society to engage these drivers on temporary basis
their services can be utilized for temporary basis, however they cannot
seek for any absorption or regularisation on permanent basis because the
respondent may not be a permanent entity or department permitted to
provide jobs to these drivers on permanent basis for which there is no
fund.
7. When that was the stand taken by the learned Standing counsel
appearing for the second respondent, Mr.P.Ganesh, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants has also submitted that, if that is ensured and
the services of these appellants as drivers on temporary basis are
continued so long as their services are required to the second respondent
Society, the appellants would be satisfied.
8. Having considered the said submissions made by both sides,
especially the stand taken by the learned Standing counsel appearing for
the second respondent, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ appeal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
with the following orders:
That the relief sought for by the appellants before the Writ Court
seeking regularisation of their services as drivers at the second
respondent Society is not feasible for compliance for two reasons.
First, that the second respondent Society is not a State, therefore
such a direction cannot be given by this Court invoking the
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution by
way of mandamus. Secondly, on merits also since it is not a State
nor a Department or a Public Sector undertaking that kind of
permanency cannot be sought for by the appellants, therefore on
that reason also, the plea has to be rejected, therefore, to that extent
the order passed by the learned Judge is to be sustained,
accordingly it is sustained.
However, in view of the stand taken by the second respondent as
well as the appellants as recorded herein above, we are inclined to
give a direction to the second respondent to retain the services of
the appellants as temporary drivers so long as their services are
required at the second respondent Society on temporary basis at the
present status itself.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. With these directions and observations, this writ appeal is
disposed of. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
10. It is brought to our notice by the learned Standing counsel
appearing for the second respondent Society that, among the three
appellants, the first appellant service has already been dispensed with and
he is no more employee even on temporary basis at the second respondent
Society. However this statement is disputed by the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants.
11. We do not want to go into that controversy, if the first appellant
continues as on date as a driver, the aforestated direction would be
applicable to him also.
(R.S.K.,J.) (K.B., J.)
02.01.2024
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
mp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Secretary,
Health and Family Welfare Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Project Director,
Tamil Nadu State Aids Control Society,
No.471, Pantheon Salai, Egmore,
Chennai – 600 008.
3. The Deputy Director of Health Service/Honorary
Secretary of District Aids Prevention and Control Unit
Dharmapuri District.
4. The Deputy Director of Health Service/Honorary
Secretary of District Aids Prevention and Control Unit
Thiruvannamalai District.
5. The Deputy Director of Health Service/Honorary
Secretary of District Aides Prevention and Control Unit,
Namakkal District.
6. The Sub-Collector,
Mathuranthagam Taluk,
Kancheepuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SURESH KUMAR., J.
and
K.KUMARESH BABU.,J.
mp
02.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
