Disposed

S.Padmavathy v. The Registrar General

Madras HC9 Jul 2015WP/18325/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Registrar General to consider an appeal filed by steno-typists regarding withdrawal of relinquishment letters, applying Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service Rules. The court ordered the appeal to be disposed of within three months without going into the merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Registrar General to consider the appeal in light of Rule 49 and pass orders within three months.

S.Padmavathy Vs The Registrar General — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 09.07.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶5

and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN

¶6

W.P. No.18325 of 2015

¶7

1.S.Padmavathy
2.S.Maheswari
3.Y.Leema Rose
4.Y.Jebamathy Angel
5.S.Moniammal ... Petitioners
Vs.
The Registrar General,
High Court, Madras,
Madras - 104. ... Respondent

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to dispose of the appeal dated 07.02.2015 forthwith in D.No.1081 of 2015, challenging the D.No.8331 to 8335/2014-A and Order Roc.No.174/2013-A dated 23.12.2014.

¶9

For Petitioners : Mr.V.Raghavachari
For Respondent : Mr.V.Ayyadurai

¶10

ORDER

¶11

(Order of the Court was made by V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.)

¶12

The petitioners, who are working as Steno-typist Grade III in various Courts in the District of Kanyakumari, have come up with the above writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the Registrar General to dispose of an appeal filed by them.

¶13

2.Heard Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.V.Ayyadurai, learned counsel for this Court.

¶14

3.The petitioners submitted letters of relinquishment of promotion in the year 2013-2014, when they became due for promotion to the post of Steno-typist Grade II. But after they gave letters of

¶15

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

¶16

relinquishment, two Government Orders were passed in G.O.Ms.No.854 Home (Courts V) Department and G.O.Ms.No.857 Home (Courts V) Department dated 24.11.2014. Contending that those Government Orders changed the complexion of the game, the petitioners made applications for withdrawal of the relinquishment.

¶17

4.Since there is no provision in Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, the District Judge returned the applications. Therefore, the petitioners gave an appeal to the Registrar General and they have come up with the above writ petition seeking a direction to the Registrar General to dispose of the said appeal.

¶18

5.In view of the limited nature of the relief prayed, without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent to consider the appeal in the light of Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service Rules and pass orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶19

-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
mmi
To

¶20

The Registrar General, High Court, Madras, Madras - 104.

¶21

+1 cc to Mr.V.Raghavachari, Advocate sr.34648

¶22

W.P.No.18325 of 2015

¶23

svi(co) aa27/07/2015

¶24

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

S.Padmavathy v. The Registrar General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Padmavathy v. The Registrar General

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.Mani Vs the Deputy Director of

The Director of Sericulture Vs K.Kumar

A.Balakrishnan Vs Union of India

Dr.M.Rajesekaran Vs Union of India

P.Sukanya, W/o.J.Parthasarathy Vs Union of India

Mr. Mohana R. Reve Vs Mrs Premlatha D. Reddi