Partly allowed

V.Selvam v. The Chairman

Madras HC15 Jul 2015WP/21235/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition regarding the non-promotion of the petitioner. Noting internal disciplinary proceedings were pending, the Court directed the first respondent to decide the petitioner's appeal on merits within eight weeks instead of granting direct promotion.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to pass appropriate orders on the merits of the petitioner's appeal within eight weeks.

V.Selvam Vs The Chairman — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 15.07.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

¶5

W.P.No.21235 of 2015

¶6

¶7

M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015
V.Selvam ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Chairman
TANGEDCO
Anna Salai, Chennai – 2
2. The Chief Engineer (Personnel)
TANGEDCO
Anna Salai, Chennai – 2
3. The Superintending Engineer
Electricity Distribution Circle
TANGEDCO, Salem ... Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in proceedings dated 26.03.2015 in Memo No.044943/192/G.59/G.592/2014-7 on the file of 2^nd respondent and quash the same in respect of petitioner and consequently direct the respondent to promote the petitioner from the post of Inspector of Assessment to Revenue Supervisor on par with the petitioner juniors promotion date.

¶9

By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶10

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

¶11

The petitioner is working as Inspector of Assessment in the Office of the Junior Engineer (O &M) Gangavalli, Salem District and his next avenue of promotion is Revenue Supervisor (RS). When the second respondent prepared the panel for promotion to the post of Revenue Inspector, the petitioner's name did not find place and the same was communicated to the petitioner vide memo No. 044943/192/G.59/G.592/2014-7 dated 26.03.2015. The petitioner would state that as on the crucial date, namely 20.03.2014, , no charge memo was pending against him and he has been served with charge memo dated 27.06.2014 only on 25.07.2014 for his misconduct under Clause 19(iii), 19(ix) and 19(x) of Standing Orders of the Clerical Workmen engaged in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. It is further stated that though an Enquiry Officer was appointed, till date no enquiry was conducted. Hence, the petitioner made a representation to the 1^st respondent on 22.04.2015. Since no action was taken by the 1^st respondent, he came forward to file this writ petition.

¶12

3.Though the petitioner has questioned the impugned proceedings in Memo No.44943/192/G.59/G.592/2014-7 dated 26.03.2015, issued by the Chief Engineer (Personnel), the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he would be satisfied if the appeal filed by him before the first respondent on 22.04.2015 is disposed of within a stipulated time.

¶13

In fact, in the impugned proceedings dated 26.03.2015, it is stated that aggrieved person could make an appeal to the first respondent within a period of two months from the date of receipt of communication.

¶14

In these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to pass appropriate orders in the appeal filed by the petitioner dated 22.04.2015 on merits and in accordances with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶15

-s/dAssistant Registrar(CSIII) dt:28/07/2015 True Copy

¶16

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶17

gpa

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

The Chairman TANGEDCO Anna Salai, Chennai – 2 2. The Chief Engineer (Personnel) TANGEDCO Anna Salai, Chennai – 2 3. The Superintending Engineer Electricity Distribution Circle TANGEDCO, Salem +1 cc to Mr.P.R.DilipKumar Advocate sr.35692 +1 cc to Mr.B.Manoharan, Advocate sr.35805/15 W.P.No.21235 of 2015 &

¶21

M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015

¶22

ag(co) aa31/07/2015

¶23

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

V.Selvam v. The Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Selvam v. The Chairman

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

Dr. P.Umadevi, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

R.Vijayalakshmi, Vs the President

M.Sabanayagam Vs Sankar

S.Krishnaveni Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.

R.Pandi, Vs State of Tamilnadu

G.Anandavel Vs The State of Tamilnadu