Disposed

S.Subramani, v. the Commissioner of Tourism

Madras HC7 Aug 2013WP(MD)/5906/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order directing the Commissioner of Tourism to dispose of the petitioner's 2009 representation regarding service regularization on merits within eight weeks after personal hearing. Petition disposed with directions.

What did the court decide?

Directed first respondent to consider and dispose of petitioner's representation dated 22.05.2009 on merits and in accordance with law within eight weeks from date of receipt of order copy.

S.Subramani, Vs the Commissioner of Tourism — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 07.08.2013

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.5906 of 2011 & M.P(MD).No.1 of 2011

¶7

S.Subramani : Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

1.The Commissioner of Tourism, Tourism Department, Tamil Nadu Tourism Campus, Chennai-600 002.

¶10

2.The Tourism Officer, Tourism Office, Madurai-1. : Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner as an employee in a suitable post with the time scale of pay in the office of the second respondent with all service benefits and attendant and other benefits including continuity of service.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Saravanan For Respondents : Mr.S.Chandrasekar Govt.Advocate **********

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

Heard Mr.B.Saravanan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as Mr.S.Chandrasekar, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶15

At this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the representation of the petitioner, dated 22.05.2009, is directed to be disposed of by the first respondent, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period. He has further submitted that one S.Udayakumar, who was similarly placed as that of the petitioner, had been regularised in service, pursuant to the order passed by this Court, on 30.06.2011, in W.P.(MD).No.15351 of 2011. Therefore, the first respondent may be directed to pass similar order in the case of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner.

¶16

The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, has no objection for such an order being passed by this Court.

¶17

¶18

In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support

¶19

of this Writ Petition and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the first respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation, dated 22.05.2009, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of the representation, dated 22.05.2009, along with a copy of this order, to the first respondent. However, it is made clear, that this Court, by this order, has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

¶20

The Writ Petition stands disposed of, with the above directions.

¶21

Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶22

Sd/Assistant Registrar /True Copy/

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

1.The Commissioner of Tourism, Tourism Department, Tamil Nadu Tourism Campus, Chennai-600 002. 2.The Tourism Officer, Tourism Office, Madurai-1. +1cc to Mr.B.Saravanan Advocate SR.No.40263. +1cc to Special Government Pleader, Madurai. Ts/16.09.2013/2p-5c

¶26

W. P.(MD) No.5906 of 2011 Dated:- 07.08.2013

¶27

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

S.Subramani, v. the Commissioner of Tourism

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Subramani, v. the Commissioner of Tourism

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

K.Sambandam, Vs the Secretary to Govt. of

Pollachi Municipal Employees Vs State of Tamil Nadu

H.Akthar Jan, Vs the Inspector General of

N. Jayakumar Vs the Managing Director

S. Sivasubramaniam, Vs Tamilnadu Agricultural

R.Vaithiyanathan, Vs Director of School Education