1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.(MD)No.13935 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 T.Arikrishnan ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Assistant Manager P & IR, Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project, Kudankulam Post, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District-627 106. 2. Sudalaikan, N Helper, Operation and Maintenance Section, Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project, Kudankulam Post, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District- 627 106. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to extend and confirm the services of the petitioner with permanent status and place the petitioner at par with the second respondent namely Sudalaikan.N with seniority promotion, continuity of service along with back wages and other appurtenant relief by considering the petitioner's various representations including dated 19.01.2010 and 25.02.2010. For Petitioner :Mr.M.Sathiamoorthy For Respondents :Mr.B.Pugalenthi, Special Govt. Pleader O R D E R The petitioner, who was appointed as a helper on fixed term basis in the first respondent Corporation Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project on 30.04.2004 along with nine others including the second respondent, who is immediate junior to the petitioner, has filed the present Writ Petition seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to extend and confirm the services of the petitioner with permanent status and place the petitioner at par with the second respondent viz., Sudalaikan.N with seniority promotion, continuity of service along with back wages and other benefits by considering the petitioner's various representations including dated 19.01.2010 and 25.02.2010. 2. Though the petitioner was appointed as a helper on 30.04.2004, on a consolidated payment of Rs.3,000/- per month, he was also alloted with Employment Number as C.C.No.19090 by the first respondent Corporation. On completion of the one year period of employment, the first respondent also passed an order and approved the continuation of the fixed term appointment for a further period of one year with effect from 30.04.2005 to 29.04.2006 along with other nine employees with the payment of Rs.3,185/- per month. Thereafter, the first respondent also by passing an order on 22.04.2006, has approved the continuation of the fixed term helper for a further period https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 of one year till 29.04.2007. In the mean while, a theft case in a private company working under the first respondent Corporation was registered. Though the name of the petitioner was not figured in the F.I.R., finally his name was shown in the final report. As a result, a case was registered in Crime No.256 of 2006 and four other cases, the petitioner was busy in moving bail application and he was not able to attend the office from 16.11.2006 to 07.02.2007. 3. In such circumstances, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that so far as the criminal cases filed against the petitioner are concerned, in all five cases he was acquitted. However, in view of his absence from duty, the first respondent failed to confirm his service as a helper. With the result, they declined to extend his tenure of fixed term helper for further period. Therefore, the only grievance of the petitioner is that when all other co-employees, who were appointed along with him were confirmed, the first respondent has chosen wrongly, not to extend the same benefit to him. On the basis, he has come to this Court for issuance of the above mentioned relief. 4. This Court is not inclined to accept the said reason, for, admittedly this is a case where the petitioner was allegedly involved not only in one theft case, but more than four theft cases. Of course, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner it appears that the petitioner got acquitted in more of the criminal cases. In view of various criminal cases with which he moved an application for bail and attending the trial Court, he was not able to attend the office. Therefore, the first respondent has failed to confirm the service of the petitioner by extending the tenure of fixed term helper, as to the case of other similarly placed persons, as the first respondent has refused to extend the benefit and confirmation of the petitioner, this Court is not in a position to consider the prayer. Hence, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( T AND P ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR akv To The Assistant Manager P & IR, Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project, Kudankulam Post, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District-627 106. DM::2012:JANUARY::10:: W.P.(MD)No.13935 of 2011 08.12.2011 2P:2C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/