Disposed

M.Marimuthu v. the Secretary

Madras HC3 Mar 2015WP(MD)/397/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

M. Marimuthu filed a writ petition seeking regularization of his services in Kumbakonam Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. from July 29, 1981, and consequent benefits. The bank did not appear. The High Court directed the government department to consider the claim on merits within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 1st respondent to consider the claim for regularization of petitioner's services and pass orders on merits within four weeks.

M.Marimuthu Vs the Secretary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.03.2015

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

Writ Petition (MD) No.397 of 2013 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2013

¶6

M.Marimuthu ... Petitioner Vs.

¶7

1.The Secretary, Food and Co-operative Consumer Protection Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai.

¶8

2.The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, N.V.N.Natarajan Maaligai, Eega Theatre Opposite, Kilpauk, Chennai.

¶9

3.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thanjavur.

¶10

4.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kumbakonam.

¶11

5.Kumbakonam Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Rep by its Special Officer, T.S.No.4062, Kumbakonam Post, Thanjavur District.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to regularize the services of the petitioner in the 5th respondent bank from the date of his appointment on 29.07.1981 and sanction consequent pay benefits.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.Sribalaji For Respondents 1-4 : Mr.S.Kumar, Additional Government Pleader. For 5^th Respondent : No appearance

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus directing the respondents to regularize his services in the fifth respondent bank from the date of his appointment.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The grievance of the petitioner is that even though he is working from 29.07.1981 in the fifth respondent bank, his services are not regularised. Therefore, it is for the fifth respondent to consider

¶18

¶19

the claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law.

¶20

3.Though notice was ordered and issued to the fifth respondent and the name of the fifth respondent is printed in the cause list, they have not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel.

¶21

4.Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the (*)first respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner seeking regularization and pass appropriate orders on the said request on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks. No costs. Consequently, M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013 is closed.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(T&P)

¶24

()CORRECTED AS PER THE ORDER OF THIS COURT DATED 27/3/2015 MADE IN WP(MD)NO.397 OF 2013 BY KRCBJ**

¶25

/TRUE COPY/

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

¶28

(*)TO BE SUBSTITUTED TO THE ORDER ALREADY DESPATCHED ON 20/3/2015

¶29

1.The Secretary,

¶30

Food and Co-operative

¶31

Consumer Protection Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai.

¶32

2.The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, N.V.N.Natarajan Maaligai, Eega Theatre Opposite, Kilpauk, Chennai.

¶33

3.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thanjavur.

¶34

4.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kumbakonam.

¶35

5.The Special Officer, Kumbakonam Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., T.S.No.4062, Kumbakonam Post, Thanjavur District. +1cc to M/s.J.Maria Roseline,Advocate SR.No.10167 +1cc to Special Govt.Pleader,SR.No.10238

¶36

Writ Petition (MD) No.397 of 2013 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2013 03.03.2015

¶37

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sms PA/11.03.2015/2P/8C RL/8C – 13/4/2015

M.Marimuthu v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Marimuthu v. the Secretary

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

G.S. Dhinakaran Vs the Registrar

M. Shanmuga Sundaram Vs the Metropolitan Transport

S. Kansasamy, Vs the Tahsildar

T. Murugananthan, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Raja, S/O. Velukonar, Vs the Commissioner of Pudukottai

M.Meera Maideen Vs the Accountant General of