Remanded

P.Anandan, v. The Commissioner

Madras HC18 Feb 2015WP/32223/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner challenged incorrect seniority preparations via a writ petition. The Court directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation on merits, issue notices to affected parties, and dispose of the matter within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation on merits within three months after issuing notice to all affected parties.

P.Anandan, Vs The Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 18.02.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN

¶5

Writ Petition No.32223 of 2014

¶6

and

¶7

M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶8

P.Anandan .. Petitioner

¶9

vs.

¶10

The Commissioner
Erode City Municipal Corporation
Erode 638 002.

¶11

The Commissioner of Municipal
Administration, Chepauk
Chennai 600 005. ..Respondents

¶12

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 17.10.2014 for restoration of petitioner's seniority within a reasonable period as may be fixed by this Court.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Ranganathan For Respondents : Mr.P.Srinivas for R1 Mr.M.S.Ramesh Additional Government Pleader for R2 O R D E R

¶14

The seniority of the petitioner was not prepared properly and the same made him to submit a representation on 17.10.2014. The representation is now pending on the file of the first respondent. The present request is to consider the said representation on merits.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the second respondent.

¶16

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

¶17

The first respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 17.10.2014 on merits and as per law after issuing notice to all affected parties. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶19

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar

¶20

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vj2
To
1. The Commissioner
Erode City Municipal Corporation
Erode 638 002.
2. The Commissioner of Municipal
Administration, Chepauk
Chennai 600 005.
+ 1 cc to Mr.T.Ranganathan, Advocate SR.8832
W.P.No.32223 of 2014
RK(CO)
Eu 05.03.15

¶21

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

P.Anandan, v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Anandan, v. The Commissioner

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

S.Ramasamy Vs The Director of Animal

D.Roselin Joyce, Vs Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies

S.Alexraj Vs The State of Tamilnadu

S.Johnbosco Vs the Chief Engineer

M.Hemavathi Vs The Commissioner

R.Pravin Raj, Vs State of Tamil Nadu