Allowed

D.Sampoornam v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC24 Feb 2015WP/994/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner, a part-time employee, approached the Madras High Court seeking regularization of services based on a 2008 recommendation by the third respondent. The Court directed the second respondent to consider the 2014 representation on merits.

What did the court decide?

A period of three months to consider and dispose of the representation on merits in light of the 2008 recommendation.

D.Sampoornam Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 24.02.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN

¶5

Writ Petition No.994 of 2015

¶6

D.Sampoornam ...Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Department of Education, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶9

2.The District Education Officer, Vellore, Vellore District.

¶10

3.The Head Master, Government Higher Secondary School, Kalavai, Vellore District. ...Respondents

¶11

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to consider the representation dated 26.06.2014 of the petitioner made in respect of regularization of the petitioner services from the date of appointment in accordance with law and on its merits and pass orders.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.Balan Haridas

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.M.S.Ramesh,

¶14

Addl.Govt.Pleader

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The petitioner was appointed as Part Time Employee by the District Educational Officer vide proceedings dated 29.12.1987. The appointment was on consolidated wages. The petitioner joined duty on 05.01.1988. The petitioner has been working as Part Time Employee in Government Higher Secondary School, Ranipet.

¶17

The third respondent taking into account the continuous service of the petitioner made a proposal to the second respondent to regularise her services vide proposal dated 22.01.2008. The matter is now pending on the file of the second respondent.

¶18

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

¶19

The second respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 26.06.2014 on merits and as per law and more particularly, in the light of the recommendation made by the third respondent vide proceedings dated 22.01.2008. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

¶21

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS III)
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
svki
To
1.The Secretary
State of Tamil Nadu,
Department of Education,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Education Officer,
Vellore, Vellore District.
3.The Head Master,
Government Higher Secondary School,
Kalavai, Vellore District.
1 cc to Mr. Balan Haridas, Advocate, Sr. 9895
1 cc to the Government Pleader, sr. 10232
W.P.No.994 of 2015
EV (CO)
kk 9/3

¶22

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

D.Sampoornam v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Sampoornam v. The State of Tamilnadu

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

V.B.R. Menon Vs M.Ganasekaran

R.Kumar Vs the Managing Director

K.Balasubramanian Vs Pradip v.Philip I.P.S

N.Nataraj, Vs the Chairman

K.Jayapal, Vs the Chairman

V.Venkata Pradeep Vs the Accountant General