SINU v. TANUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. This Court had not granted any interim order in favour of the petitioner restraining termination. At this distance of time, I do not think that anything survives in this writ petition. W.P.(C)No.609 of 2016 -: 2 :- Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/-…
Judgment
SINU AGED 23 YEARS, W/O. RAMESH, CHIRAKKODE VEEDU, KUNDUKAD, THONIPADAM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV SRI.BABY MATHEW RESPONDENTS: 1 2 TANUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TARUR P.O., ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678544. JESEENA P. AGED 22 YEARS, W/O. REJI, CHERUTHODI HOUSE, THONIPADAM, VAVULLIYAPURAM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678541. BY ADV SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
03.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SATHISH NINAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C)No.609 of 2016 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2024 JUDGMENT Order terminating the petitioner from the services at NRHM Homeo Dispensary under the 1st respondent Panchayath is under challenge in this writ petition.
The petitioner was appointed as an Attender at the Homeo Dispensary under the 1st respondent on daily wages from 01.07.2013 onwards. The new committee of the Panchayat, on 07.12.2015, decided to terminate the petitioner and appoint the 2nd respondent to the post.
Operative part
This Court had not granted any interim order in favour of the petitioner restraining termination. At this distance of time, I do not think that anything survives in this writ petition. W.P.(C)No.609 of 2016 -: 2 :- Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- SATHISH NINAN JUDGE W.P.(C)No.609 of 2016 -: 3 :- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 609/2016 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1- EXHIBIT P2- EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE APPOITMENT LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28- 06-2013. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 1-1-2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1-1-2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.