Dismissed

S.Rajendran, v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC23 Apr 2015WP/1917/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Lok Adalat presided over by Justice P. Thangavel and two members settled a dispute between nine petitioners seeking promotion and multiple respondents. The petitioners appeared in person, endorsed the withdrawal of Writ Petition No. 1917 of 2010, and the matter was dismissed as withdrawn without costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed as withdrawn without costs; refund of full court fee directed.

S.Rajendran, Vs the Secretary to Government — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, CHENNAI

¶2

Lok Adalat-I organised by the High Court Legal Services Committee

¶3

Thursday, the 23rd day of April, 2015

¶4

LOK ADALAT AWARD

¶5

(Chapter VI and u/s 21 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987)

¶6

Presided over by

¶7

The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE P.THANGAVEL (Retd.)
and
Members
Mr.S.Manoharan
Mrs.V.Nalini
W.P.No.1917 of 2010
(Writ Petition has filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned appointment
order of the Respondents 4 to 28 issued by the third respondent in
Memo No:53/7571/E1/TNSTC (VPM)/2009 dated 14.12.2009 and quash the
same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to promote the
petitioners to the post of Junior Engineer as per the ratio of 1:1
with all attendant benefits and pass any other further or other
orders)
1. S.Rajendran
2. S.Govindarajan
3. S.H.Syed Dawood
4. R.Muthukumaran
5. K.Rajaraman
6. E.Venkatesh
7. B.Thirugnanam
8. Sakthivel
9. T.Durai Arasan .. Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Secretary to Government,
Transport Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 9.
2. The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (VPM) Limited,
Villupuram Region,
Villupuram – 605 602.

¶8

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

¶9

The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Villupuram Region, Villupuram – 605 602.

¶10

D.Vimalraj

¶11

P.E.Sakthidoss 6. K.Yuvaraj 7. S.Santhosh 8. D.Gugananthan 9. J.Srinivasan 10. M.Gnanasekaran 11. S.Karunagaran 12. R.Vinayagam 13. R.Muthamizh Selvan 14. Jothideivamani 15. S.Venkatesan 16. G.Ramachandran 17. P.Purushothaman 18. D.Nagaraj 19. E.Parthiban 20. M.Ekambaram 21. K.Kamalakannan 22. S.Dineshbabu 23. K.Sivaraman 24. M.Vinoth 25. V.Jaganathan 26. G.Thamarai Kannan 27. N.Haribhaskar 28. T.Janarthanan .. Respondents

¶12

This case came up for settlement before the Lok Adalat. Petitioners 1 to 9, who appeared party-in-person. Respondents are absent. TERMS OF SETTLEMENT

¶13

The petition in W.P.No.1917 of 2010 pending on the file of High Court, Madras has been referred to Lok Adalat for conciliation.

¶14

The petitioners have filed the writ petition against the respondents to issue a Writ of Certiorified Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of writ to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned appointment order of the respondents 4 to 28 issued by the third respondent in Memo No:53/7571/E1/TNSTC (VPM)/2009 dated 14.12.2009 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to promote the petitioners to the post of Junior Engineer as per the ratio of 1:1 with all attendant benefits and pass any other further or other orders.

¶15

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

¶16

The petitioners 1 to 9, who appeared in person before the Lok Adalat and they have made endorsement on the writ petition to the effect that the petitioners have settled the matter and therefore, the petitioners are withdrawing the writ petition. They have also made an endorsement to the effect that the writ petition may be dismissed as withdrawn but without cost

¶17

The above said endorsement made by the petitioners, who appeared in person are recorded.

¶18

In view of the above endorsement made on the writ petition by the petitioners as party-in-person, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn but without costs. Award is passed accordingly.

¶19

The full Court fee paid shall be refunded to the petitioners in the manner provided under Section 69-A of the Tamil Nadu CourtFees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 and the Court Fees Act, 1870 as provided for under sub Sec.1 of Section 21 r/w 25 of LSA Act 1987 as amended in 1994.

¶20

Sd/
Judge
Sd/ Sd/
Member Member
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar

¶21

To:The parties/Advocate concerned

¶22

Copy to:

¶23

The Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.

¶24

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (VPM) Limited, Villupuram Region, Villupuram – 605 602.

¶25

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

¶26

The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Villupuram Region, Villupuram – 605 602.

¶27

4.The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, Chennai.

¶28

5.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.

¶29

6.The Section Officer, Lok Adalat Section, High Court, Madras.+2 copies

¶30

W.P.No.1917 of 2010
SV (CO)
kk 27/4

¶31

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

S.Rajendran, v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Rajendran, v. the Secretary to Government

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

Branch Manger Vs Mrs.Jaya Lakshmi

The Managing Director- Vs Kaliyamurthy

Managing Director Vs Mutthal

M/S. Selva Ganapathy Rice Vs the Chairman

J.Suresh, Vs the District Elementary

R.Kaliammal Vs Manohar