Disposed

C.Venkatesan v. The Chief Engineer (Personnel)

Madras HC15 Jun 2015WP/16803/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners sought enforcement of an earlier order regularizing services of employees taken over by TANGEDCO. The single judge directed the Chief Engineer (Personnel) to pass orders on a representation in accordance with law and a Supreme Court decision within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to pass orders on the petitioners' representation within eight weeks.

C.Venkatesan Vs The Chief Engineer (Personnel) — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 15.06.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

¶5

W.P.No.16803 of 2015

¶6

1.C.Venkatesan 2.C.Venkatesan 3.V.Jayakumar ... Petitioners Vs.

¶7

1.The Chief Engineer (Personnel) TANGEDCO (Formerly TNEB) Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.

¶8

2.The Superintending Engineer, Electricity Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO, Thiruvannamalai. ... Respondents

¶9

Prayer:

¶10

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent herein to extend the benefit of the orders of this Hon'ble Court made W.P.No.21163 of 2002 consequently direct the respondent Board to regularize petitioners services.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Manoharan

¶12

For Respondents : Mrs.R.Varalakshmi

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

Heard both sides. By consent the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶15

2.The petitioners worked in the Vandavasi Rural Electric Co-Operative Society Limited. It was taken over by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in the year 2002. The person similarly situated like the petitioners filed W.P.No.21163 of 2002 for Mandamus to direct the respondent Electricity Board to regularise their services. According to the petitioners, this Court allowed that writ petition by an order dated 03.08.2011. The petitioners made representation dated 15.04.2015 to the respondents. Now, the petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking for direction to extend the benefit of the aforesaid order of this Court made in W.P.No.21163 of 2002. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on the decision

¶16

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

¶17

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2008) 9 SCC 24 (Maharaj Krishan Bhatt and another Versus State of Jammu and Kashmir and others).

¶18

3.At the time of hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would be satisfied if the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent / The Chief Engineer (Personnel) to pass orders on the representation in the light of the aforesaid judgments.

¶19

4.In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to pass orders on the representation of the petitioners dated 15.04.2015 in accordance with law and in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2008) 9 SCC 24 (Maharaj Krishan Bhatt and another Versus State of Jammu and Kashmir and others) and the order of this Court dated 03.08.2011 made in W.P.No.21163 of 2002 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶20

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
pri
To
1.The Chief Engineer (Personnel)
TANGEDCO (Formerly TNEB)
Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.
2.The Superintending Engineer,
Electricity Distribution Circle,
TANGEDCO, Thiruvannamalai.

¶21

+1cc to Mr.B. Manoharan, Advocate, S.R.No.29038

¶22

KK(CO) EU(30/06/2015)

¶23

W.P.No.16803 of 2015

¶24

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

C.Venkatesan v. The Chief Engineer (Personnel)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Venkatesan v. The Chief Engineer (Personnel)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Chakkaravarthy Vs Phanindhra Reddy IAS

G.Krishnan Vs Phanindhra Reddy IAS

M.Perumal Vs Government of Tamil Nadu

A.Jayaraman Vs the President

D.Nathiya Vs The Chariman cum Managing

G.Senthil Murugan Vs The Commissioner of Sugars