Disposed

Dr.M.Balasubramanian, v. the District Collector

Madras HC12 Mar 2013WP(MD)/3757/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought directions for the second respondent to consider a representation regarding unpaid gratuity within a fixed timeframe. The Court directed the respondent to consider the representation on merits with an opportunity of hearing within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to consider the representation on merits with hearing within eight weeks.

Dr.M.Balasubramanian, Vs the District Collector — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED 12.03.2013

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN

¶5

W.P(MD)No.3757 of 2013

Dr.M.Balasubramanian

..Petitioner

The District Collector, Director-Saraswathy Mahal Library, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.

¶10

The Administrative Officer, Saraswathi Mahal Library, Palace Complex, Thanjavur-2. ..Respondents.

¶11

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 28.08.2012 within the time frame fixed by this Court.

¶12

For Petitioner :M/s.M.S.Anand For Respondents :Mr.M.Govindian Spl.Govt.Pleader

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Mr.M.Govindan, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. Considering the nature of relief prayed for, with the consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶15

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that he filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Trichy for payment of gratuity amount in O.A.No.28 of 2006 and the same was allowed and the second respondent was directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- and that amount was not paid and therefore, the petitioner sent a representation, dated 28.08.2012 to the second respondent to implement the order passed in O.A.No.28 of 2006 and prayed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to dispose of the representation made by the Petitioner.

¶16

As the second respondent was directed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Trichy to pay the gratuity amount to the Petitioner by order, dated 04.01.2012 and the same was not paid, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ second respondent is directed to consider the representation of the Petitioner, dated 28.08.2012, on merits and in accordance with law,after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties

¶17

¶18

concerned, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶19

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

vsn To

¶24

The District Collector, Director-Saraswathy Mahal Library, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur. 2. The Administrative Officer, Saraswathi Mahal Library, Palace Complex, Thanjavur-2.

¶25

+1CC to Mr.M.Karunanithi, Advocate in SR.No.13376 +1CC to Special Government Pleader, in SR.No.13662

¶26

W.P(MD)No.3757 of 2013 12.03.2013 rg.22.03.2013 2p/5c

¶27

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

Dr.M.Balasubramanian, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.M.Balasubramanian, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.Manikandan, Vs the Secretary to Govt.

M.Chellaiah, Vs the Secretary to Govt.

P. Rajapandi, Vs the Secretary to Govt.

M/S. Sunpak, Vs the Commissioner of Central

R.Rajendran, Vs the Conseravator of Forest

S.Kannan, Vs the General Manager