Dismissed

K. Palanichamy v. the State of Tamilnadu Rep by

Madras HC21 Apr 2015WP(MD)/19060/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench addressed a writ petition seeking a direction to treat the petitioner's retirement age as 60 and extend his service. The single-judge court held the writ against the cooperative society respondent not maintainable, citing a Larger Bench decision, and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable against the cooperative society respondent.

K. Palanichamy Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep by — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

K.Palanichamy

¶3

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.04.2015 CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶5

WRIT PETITION (MD) No.19060 of 2014 & MP(MD)No.1 of 2014

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

-vs-

¶8

1 THE STATE OF TAMILNADU

¶9

REP. BY ITS DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, FISHERIES AND DAIRY DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI-9.

¶10

THE COMMISSIONER

¶11

MILK PRODUCTION AND DAIRY DEVELOPMENT, MILK COLONY, MATHAVARAM, CHENNAI-51.

¶12

THE GERNERAL MANGER MADURAI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCTS UNION LTD., SATHAMANGALAM, MADURAI-20.

¶13

THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR (DAIRY), DAIRY DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, A.I CENTRE, AAVIN COMPLEX, SATHAMANGALAM, MADURAI-20. ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the retirement age of the petitioner as 60 as per the category of Office Assistant and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue his service till the age of 60.

¶15

The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition, seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the retirement age of the petitioner as 60 as per the category of Office Assistant and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue his service till the age of 60.

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Even though a direction is sought by the petitioner against all the respondents in the prayer, a reading of the affidavit would clearly show that since the petitioner is working as Mazdoor in the office of the

¶17

¶18

third responent, his case has to be necessarily considered by them only, which is admittedly a Society, namely, Madurai District Co-Operative Milk Products Union Ltd., Sathamangalam, Madurai. The writ against the cooperative society is not maintainable in view of the decision of the Larger Bench of this Court in the case of K.Marappan Vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies Namakkal Circle, Namakkal-636 001 and another reported in 2006 (4) CTC 689.

¶19

Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioner, if so advised, can avail alternative remedy in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

To:

¶23

1 THE SECRETARY TO STATE OF TAMIL NADU, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, FISHERIES AND DAIRY DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI-9. 2. THE COMMISSIONER MILK PRODUCTION AND DAIRY DEVELOPMENT, MILK COLONY, MATHAVARAM, CHENNAI-51. 3. THE GERNERAL MANGER MADURAI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCTS UNION LTD., SATHAMANGALAM, MADURAI-20. 4. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR (DAIRY), DAIRY DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, A.I CENTRE, AAVIN COMPLEX, SATHAMANGALAM, MADURAI-20. +1cc to MR.T.LAJAPATHI ROY, ADVOCATE IN SR : 20697 +1CC TO THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, IN SR : 20714 Ar SR/KBM : 11.05.2015 : 2p/7c WRIT PETITION (MD) No.19060 of 2014 21.04.2015

¶24

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

K. Palanichamy v. the State of Tamilnadu Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Palanichamy v. the State of Tamilnadu Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R. Reena Rose, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

E. Ramakrishnan, Vs the State of Tamilnadu

M. Arumuganainar, Vs the Secretary to Govt.

P.Thangamani, Vs the State of Tamilnadu

S. Gnanasekaran, Vs the Principal Secretary /

C. Murugaprabhu, Vs the Inspector General