Allowed

The Managing Director, v. D. Prabakaran

Madras HC18 Jul 2016WA/655/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Writ Appeal, the Apex Court held that the relief sought for retirement became infructuous due to the respondent's subsequent suspension and initiation of a disciplinary enquiry. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the prior order granting retirement.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal allowed; Impugned order in W.P.No.17860 of 2016 set aside; W.P.No.17860 of 2016 dismissed as infructuous; Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

The Managing Director, Vs D. Prabakaran — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 18.07.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.KALAIYARASAN

¶5

Writ Appeal No.655 of 2016
and
C.M.P.No.8429 of 2016
1.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Nandanam, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 035
2.The Superintendent Engineer,
Chennai Region,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
331, Anna Salai, Nandanam,
Chennai-600 035 .... Appellants
vs.
D.Prabakaran .... Respondent
WRIT APPEAL filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against
the order passed by this court dated 12.05.2016 made on
W.P.No.17860 of 2016 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the
respondents to consider the Petitioner's representation dated
06.05.2016 and thereby allow the Petitioner to retire from his
service on 31.05.2016 from the post of Executive Engineer and
Administrative Officer at Tamilnadu Housing Board, Sathuvachari,
Vellore 632 609 will all service emoluments.

¶6

For Appellants : Mr.Anandhamoorthy

¶7

For Respondent : Mr.J.Selvarajan

¶8

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

¶9

J U D G M E N T

¶10

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶11

A.SELVAM, J)

¶12

This Writ Appeal has been directed against the order dated 12.05.2016, passed in W.P.No.17860 of 2016, by the learned single Judge of this Court.

¶13

The respondent herein, as petitioner, has filed W.P.No.17860 of 2016, on the file of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of mandamus so as to direct the appellants/respondents to consider the representation given by the respondent/petitioner on 6.5.2016 and also to allow the respondent/petitioner to retire from service.

¶14

The learned single Judge, after considering the nature of relief sought therein and also after considering the rival contentions raised on either side, has allowed W.P.No.17860 of 2016, by way of passing the impugned order. Against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the present Writ Appeal has been preferred, at the instance of the respondents, as appellants.

¶15

The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/respondents has contended that after passing the impugned order in W.P.No.17860 of 2016, the respondent/petitioner has been suspended and a charge memo has been issued and the same has been challenged in W.P.No.18550 of 2016, wherein a specific direction has been given to expedite the enquiry contemplated against the respondent/petitioner. Under the said circumstances, the relief sought in W.P.No.17860 of 2016 has become infructuous.

¶16

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/petitioner has also fairly conceded that the relief sought in W.P.No.17860 of 2016 has become infructuous, in view of the subsequent events.

¶17

Considering the fact that after passing the impugned order in W.P.No.17860 of 2016, the respondent/petitioner has been suspended and a charge memo has also been issued and subsequently, he has filed W.P.No.18550 of 2016, wherein a specific direction has been given to expedite the enquiry contemplated against the respondent/petitioner, this Court is of the view that the relief sought in W.P.No.17860 of 2016 has become infructuous and therefore, the present Writ Appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶18

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

¶19

In fine, this Writ Appeal is allowed without cost. The order passed in W.P.No.17860 of 2016 is set aside and W.P.No.17860 of 2016 is dismissed as infructuous. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar(CS II)

¶22

//True Copy//

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar
msk
To
1.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Nandanam, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 035
2.The Superintendent Engineer,
Chennai Region,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
331, Anna Salai, Nandanam,
Chennai-600 035
1 cc to Mr.V.Anandhamoorthy, Advocate, sr.40303
1 cc to Mr.K.Munusamy, Advocate, sr.28816
W.A. No.655 of 2016
ev co
kra 03.08.2016

¶24

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

The Managing Director, v. D. Prabakaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director, v. D. Prabakaran

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

The Manging Director Vs T. Piramaayagam

Resy Riviere Vs Marie Leon @ Udayakumar

Ashok Acharya, Vs Heena Acharya

M.Arumugam Vs District Collector

Union of India Vs Shri H.S. Bava

M/S Jonas Woodhead & Sons (I) Vs Consolidated Civil Constructio