Disposed

V.Murugan, v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC5 Oct 2016WP/35430/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, five casual labourers seeking regularization of service with effect from completion of 10 years stipulated that they had sent a representation to the State for consideration under a Government Order. The High Court directed the respondents to consider the representation and pass orders within six weeks as per law. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Directions to respondents to consider the representation for regularization of service on completion of 10 years and pass orders on merits within six weeks.

V.Murugan, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 05.10.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶5

Writ Petition No.35430 of 2016

¶6

1 V.Murugan
2 V.Paramasivam
3 A.Rajendiran
4 A.Siva Perumal
5 M.Manikandan .. Petitioners
Vs.
1 The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by the Secretary
Public Works Department
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2 The Chief Engineer (General) and
Engineer in Chief
Chepauk, Chennai-5.
3 The Chief Engineer(Buildings)
Public Works Department
Chepauk, Chennai-5.
4 The Chief Engineer Regional
Coimbatore Region
Coimbatore.
5 The Superintending Engineer
WRO Public Works Department
Special Project Circle
Palani, Dindigul District- 624 619

¶7

.. Respondents

¶8

Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioners' representation dated 27.9.2016 for regularizing our service on and after completion of 10 years services on the basis as per the Government Orders and within a time to be stipulated by this Honourable Court.

¶9

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

¶10

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Arul Mathi For Respondents : Mr.S.N.Parthasarathi, Govt. Advocate

¶11

ORDER

¶12

By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶13

The petitioners have come up with the present writ petition for a mandamus, directing the respondents to consider their representation dated 27.9.2016 for regularizing their service on and after completion of 10 years services as per the Government Orders and within a time to be stipulated by this Court.

¶14

It is the case of the petitioners that all of them have been appointed in January 1991, February 1987, January 1985, May 1988 and May 2000 respectively as casual labourers. Now, they have completed more than 10 to 20 years of service. Though they have completed more than 10 years of service, their services were not regularized by appointing them in the time scale of pay. In this regard, they sent a representation dated 27.9.2016 to the respondents seeking regularization of their service based on G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.2.2016. However, since the same was not considered so far, left with no other alternative, the petitioners have come up with the present writ petition for the relief set out earlier.

¶15

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate, who has taken notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions made on either side, without going into the merits of the claim projected by the petitioners, this Court directs the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 27.9.2016 seeking regularization of their service, and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law and also as per G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department dated 28.2.2006, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt

¶17

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

¶18

of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

-s/d-

Assistant Registrar

True Copy

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶23

sbi
To
1 The Secretary
Public Works Department
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2 The Chief Engineer (General) and
Engineer in Chief
Chepauk, Chennai-5.
3 The Chief Engineer(Buildings)
Public Works Department
Chepauk, Chennai-5.
4 The Chief Engineer Regional
Coimbatore Region
Coimbatore.
5 The Superintending Engineer
WRO Public Works Department
Special Project Circle
Palani, Dindigul District- 624 619
+1 cc to Government Pleader sr 57525
+1 cc to P.Arul Mathi Advocate sr 57525
W.P.No.35430 of 2016
ssk(co)
aa26/10/2016

¶24

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

V.Murugan, v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Murugan, v. The State of Tamil Nadu

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

B.Ruckumaniamma Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

K.Nagammal, Vs The State of Tamilnadu

K. Sriraman Vs The Chairman and the Managing

R.Annadurai, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

C.Deiva, Vs The District Collector

R.Vijayalakshmi, Vs The Government of Tamilnadu