Madras High Court
A.Veerappan vs The District Collector on 27 June, 2018
Author: K.Kalyanasundaram
Bench: K.Kalyanasundaram
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 27.06.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
W.P.No.32033 of 2016
and WMP.Nos.27783 & 27784 of 2016
1. A.Veerappan
2. Kuppulakshmi
3. A.M.Prabhu
4. M.Madhaiyan
5. M.Gajendran
6. Senthamarai ..Petitioners
Vs
1. The District Collector,
Salem District, Salem.
2. The Commissioner,
Corporation of Salem,
Salem. ..Respondents
Prayer:- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus to forbear respondents 1 and 2 from either terminating, disengaging or dispensing with the services of the Petitioners who are doing Vettian work in the crematorium at Shevapet, Salem, due to electrification of the crematorium and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 2 to continue to engage the petitioners in the same work.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.M.Ramesh
For Respondents : Mr.B.Anand
Government Advocate for R1
: Mrs.K.Bhuvaneswari
Standing Counsel for R2
ORDER
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent and perused materials available on record.
2. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus to forbear respondents 1 and 2 from either terminating, disengaging or dispensing with the services of the petitioners, who are doing Vettian work in the crematorium at Shevapet, Salem, due to electrification of the crematorium and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 2 to continue to engage the petitioners in the same work.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were working as Vettians in the Burial ground in Shevapet, Salem. Since they apprehended that after construction of crematorium, they would lose their employment, gave a representation to the respondents seeking regularization. Since it was not considered, the present writ petition.
4. The learned Counsel for the second respondent submitted that the petitioners are not working with the second respondent and they are employed by a contractor. However, the second respondent is ready to consider the grievance of the petitioner.
5. Taking note of the limited prayer sought for in the writ petition and the submissions of the learned counsels on either side, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, directs the petitioner to give a fresh representation to the second respondent, by enclosing a copy of this order, within a period of two weeks. On such compliance, the second respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to all the necessary parties, within a period of twelve weeks therefrom.
6. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
27.06.2018
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking/ Non Speaking Order
msrm
K.KALYANASUNDARAM.J.
msrm
To
1. The District Collector,
Salem District, Salem.
2. The Commissioner,
Corporation of Salem,
Salem.
W.P.No.32033 of 2016
27.06.2018