Allowed

D.Sudhakarrasu v. State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC18 Apr 2013WP/3093/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest to promote the petitioner notionally to the post of Forester by including his name in the 2007-2008 panel, granting all consequential benefits, directing the completion of this exercise within 10 weeks, finding that no disciplinary proceedings were pending.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to promote the petitioner notionally in the post of Forester by including his name in the panel for the year 2007-2008, with all consequential service and monetary benef

D.Sudhakarrasu Vs State of Tamilnadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 18.04.2013

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA

¶5

W.P.No.3093 of 2012

¶6

D.Sudhakarrasu ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Forest Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai – 15. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of mandamus as stated therein. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mani For Respondents : Mr.M.Hidayathullah Khan, GA(F) ORDER

¶9

The petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to include the name of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Forester in the panel drawn for the year 2006-2007, 2007-2008 or atleast in the panel for the year 2008-2009 in the appropriate place and further to direct the respondents to promote the petitioner notionally in the post of Forester with all consequential service and monetary benefits, so as to enable him to get enhanced pensionary benefits in the category of Forester.

¶10

Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.

¶11

While the petitioner was working as Forest Guard from 04.04.1991, he was issued with a charge memo dated 02.05.2005, under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, for the incident that took place in the year 2001. The Enquiry Officer, on completion of the enquiry, submitted his report

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

on 31.12.2006 holding that only a portion of the charge made against the petitioner was proved. On receipt of the enquiry report, the second respondent imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of 2 years without cumulative effect. As again that, when appeal was preferred, the first respondent, without assigning any reason, passed a non-speaking order dated 19.01.2009, confirming the order passed by the second respondent. Aggrieved by the same, when a writ petition was filed in W.P.No.6409 of 2009, this Court, by order dated 16.11.2009, set aside the punishment order passed by the respondents 1 and 2 and thereby, remitted back to the first respondent for passing reasoned orders afresh. Thereafter, he submitted a representation dated 30.11.2009, along with the order passed by this Court, to pass orders afresh in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. However, even after his retirement on 30.01.2010, no order was passed by the respondent. Hence, he filed a present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer on the ground that had he been promoted to the post of Forester, he could have earned more amount as pension.

¶14

From the above said facts, it is clear that the respondents have not passed any order, even after the order passed by this Court on 16.11.2009 in W.P.No.6409 of 2009 to pass fresh orders as directed therein and even after his retirement on 30.01.2010 on reaching the age of superannuation, the same plight continued. Therefore, it goes without saying that the petitioner is entitled to get the promotion as sought for in the prayer, as, admittedly, there was no disciplinary proceedings pending against him.

¶15

Hence, for the reasons stated above, this Court, to meet the ends of justice, deems fit to direct the second respondent to promote the petitioner notionally in the post of Forester by including his name in the panel drawn for the year 2007-2008, with all consequential service and monetary benefits. The second respondent is directed to complete the said exercise within a period of 10 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No Costs.

¶16

Sd/Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar.

¶17

rkm

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

¶20

1.The Secretary to Government, Forest Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai – 15. 1 CC To Mr.S.Mani, Advocate SR NO.22971 1 CC to Government Pleader[Forests] SR 22974 W.P.No.3093 of 2012

¶21

ev[co] gp/30.4

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

D.Sudhakarrasu v. State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Sudhakarrasu v. State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Mahalingam Vs the Principal Chief

Saravanakani @ Senthilvel Vs Secretary to Govt. of India

R.Egamparam Vs the Deputy Chairman

C.R.Ramanath Vs the District Collector

Tmt.Lakshmi Vs the Secretary to the Govt.

Tamil Nadu Retired Village Vs the Government of Tamilnadu