Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 1304
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Abdul Quddhose, J.
Dr.Muthulakshmi - Petitioner
Versus
The Director, Indian Medical Association of Homeopathy and ors. – Respondents
W.P.(MD)No.20566 of 2021 and W.M.P.(MD)No.17200 of 2021
Decided On : 16-08-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.R.Murugan
For the Respondent:Mr.S.Kameswaran, Government Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Temporary employment does not guarantee rejoining or regularization, especially in cases of unauthorized absence.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Employment - Article 226 - The court discussed the temporary nature of the petitioner's appointment and the implications of maternity leave on salary entitlements, ultimately denying rejoining but allowing a representation for unpaid salary.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, appointed as an Ayush Doctor on a temporary basis during the Covid-19 period, sought to rejoin duty after termination due to absence during maternity leave, claiming entitlement to benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's appointment was temporary and based on a consolidated salary, thus affirming the termination and denying the request to rejoin, while allowing a representation for unpaid salary during maternity leave.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to rejoin duty and receive benefits after termination due to absence during maternity leave.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that temporary appointments with consolidated salaries do not confer rights to rejoin or regularization, especially when the absence was unauthorized.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed, but the petitioner may represent for unpaid salary during maternity leave.
ORDER :
Abdul Quddhose, J.
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.
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 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 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.
7.Learne
