Disposed

S. Savariraj v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC12 Feb 2015WP(MD)/1733/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the Madurai Bench directed the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 08.09.2014 for regularization of his service within eight weeks before fully disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed the third respondent to consider the representation dated 08.09.2014 for regularization and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

S. Savariraj Vs the Secretary to Government — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

S.Savariraj

¶3

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.02.2015 CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

Writ Petition (MD) No.1733 of 2015

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,

¶9

Animal Husbandry Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶10

2.The Director,

¶11

Animal Husbandry Department, DMS campus, Thenampet,

¶12

Chennai 600 006.

¶13

3.The Deputy Director,

¶14

Animal Husbandry Department,

¶15

Sivagangai.

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 8.9.2014 for absorbing him in Regular Time Scale of pay in the existing vacancies.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Govindan

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.M.Rajarajan, Government Advocate.

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Rajarajan, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.

¶22

2.The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus directing the third respondent to consider his representation dated 08.09.2014 through which he is seeking for regularization of his service.

¶23

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that even though he is working for the past 25 years on part time basis as sweeper, his service is not regularised so far. Therefore, he has made a representation on 08.09.2014 seeking for benefit of regularization. It is stated that the said representation is still pending and not yet disposed of.

¶24

4.Considering the above stated facts and circumstances, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ third respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 08.09.2014 seeking for regularization and pass

¶25

¶26

appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶27

5.With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶28

Sd/Assistant Registrar(Per.Admn) \True copy\

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

¶31

1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Animal Husbandry Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Director, Animal Husbandry Department, DMS campus, Thenampet, Chennai 600 006. 3.The Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Sivagangai. +1 CC TO THE SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SR.NO.6781 +1 CC TO M/S.R.RENGARAMANUJAM, ADVOCATE SR.NO.6382

¶32

Writ Petition (MD) No.1733 of 2015 12.02.2015

¶33

SMS

¶34

NA/20/02/2015/P2/6C

¶35

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

S. Savariraj v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Savariraj v. the Secretary to Government

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

A.B.S. Antow, Vs the Chairman

S. Moses Vs the Joint Director

P.Subramani Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative

S. Manonmani, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

G. Karikalan, Vs the Secretary to Govt.

Latin Catholic Fishermans Vs the Director of Collegiate