Disposed

S. Ravichandran, v. the Tamilnadu Water Supply

Madras HC23 Jun 2015WP(MD)/10156/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an interlocutory order where the Madras High Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 18.11.2014 concerning notional promotion and benefits, directing them to pass orders on merits within two months after affording an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders on merits within two months after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

S. Ravichandran, Vs the Tamilnadu Water Supply — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated: 23/6/2015

¶4

C O R A M

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶6

Writ Petition (MD) No.10156 of 2015

¶7

S.Ravichandran ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

1.The Tamilnadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Rep.by Chairman, Secretary Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Government of Tamilnadu, St.George Fort, Chennai

¶10

2.The Managing Director,

¶11

The Tamilnadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, 31, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶12

3.The Executive Engineer, The Tamilnadu Water Supply and Drainage Board / RWS Division, No.7, Ganesh Nagar, Opp.to Mattuthavani Bus Stand, Madurai – 625 007. ... Respondents

¶13

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay the amount Rs.50,62,885/- made in the representation, dated 18.11.2014, as detailed in calculation chart with notional promotion and monetary benefits to the petitioner.

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

For Petitioner ... Mr.M.Subash Babu for M/s. G.S.Asok Adhithyan

¶17

For Respondents ... Ms.Porkodi Kannan

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This Writ Petition has been filed, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to pay the amount Rs.50,62,885/-, made in the representation, dated 18.11.2014, as detailed in calculation chart with notional promotion and monetary benefits to the petitioner.

¶20

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

¶21

3.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that it would suffice, if the representation of the petitioner is disposed of, on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶22

4.In view of the limited scope of the prayer, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue involved, the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 18.11.2014, and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording the Petitioner an opportunity of being heard. If on a specified date the Petitioner does not appear for personal

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

hearing, orders may be passed on merits based on the available records after recording the absence of the party/Parties.

¶26

5.With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶27

Sd/Asst. Regustrar( ) /True copy/

¶28

Sub Asst. Registrar

¶29

¶30

1.The Tamilnadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Rep.by Chairman, Secretary Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Government of Tamilnadu, St.George Fort, Chennai

¶31

2.The Managing Director, The Tamilnadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, 31, Kamarajar Salai, Chepack, Chennai – 600 005.

¶32

3.The Executive Engineer, The Tamilnadu Water Supply and Drainage Board / RWS Division, No.7, Ganesh Nagar, Opp.to Mattuthavani Bus Stand, Madurai – 625 007.

¶33

+.1.c.c. To Mr. G.S. Asok Adhithyan Sr.33300

¶34

mpk. SB/9.7.2015

¶35

Writ Petition (MD) No.10156 of 2015

¶36

23/6/2015

¶37

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

S. Ravichandran, v. the Tamilnadu Water Supply

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Ravichandran, v. the Tamilnadu Water Supply

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.M. Murugeswari Jeyasutha, Vs the Additional Assistant

V.Chandrakumar Vs the Superintendent of Police

K.Dharmendiran, Vs the District Collector

E.Thangaraj, Vs the Senior Regional Managaer

M.Ravindran Mariappan, Vs the Secretary to the Govt.

M.Saravanan Vs the Superintendent of Police