Petitioner sought promotion to Special Sub-Inspector with back wages considering suspended periods. Court directed respondent to consider representation and impose orders within two months after hearing, without deciding merits.
Respondent directed to consider petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within two months after hearing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.07.2015 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN W.P.(MD).No.11536 of 2015
M.Ganesan :Petitioner
vs.
1.The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Dindigul Range, Dindigul.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Theni District. : Respondents
Prayer : Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to pass appropriate order considering the letter in Na.Ka.No.Aa.Pa/40761/315/2014 dated 26.11.2014 forwarded to him by the third respondent and to promote the Petitioner as Special Sub-Inspector after considering the period of suspension of Petitioner from 14.1.2008 to 30.09.2008, 1.10.2008 to 23.3.2011 as period on duty for all purpose with back wages, attendant and monetary benefits within the time stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : M/s.G.Solairaja For Respondents : Mr.S.Kumar Additional Govt.Pleader
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to pass appropriate order, considering the letter in Na.Ka.No.Aa.Pa/40761/315/2014, dated 26.11.2014, forwarded to him by the third respondent and to promote the Petitioner, as Special Sub-Inspector, after considering the period of suspension of Petitioner from 14.1.2008 to 30.09.2008 and 01.10.2008 to 23.3.2011, as period on duty for all purpose with back wages, attendant and monetary benefits.
3.In view of the limited scope of the prayer, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue involved, the 1st respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 29.05.2014, by taking into consideration of the communication of the 3rd https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent, dated 26.11.2014, together with the order of reinstatement, dated 18.03.2011 and pass appropriate orders on the same, in accordance
2
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 hearing, orders may be passed in accordance with law based on the available records, after recording the absence of the Party/Parties. The persons, who are likely to be affected are also to be heard before any final decision is to be taken.
4.With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO)
/True copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
+1cc to Special Govt.Pleader SR.No.38052
W.P.(MD).No.11536 of 2015
09.07.2015
mpk
PA/IV/16.07.2015/2P/5C
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation regarding his promotion and benefits despite suspension periods without expressing an opinion on merits?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M.Ganesan
The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai
The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Dindigul Range, Dindigul
The Superintendent of Police, Theni District
S.Vaidyanathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
