Disposed

J.Vijayakumar, v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC12 Sept 2016WP/9401/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order directing the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Municipal Administration to consider the petitioner's representation dated 23.09.2014 regarding promotion and relieving order after affording a personal hearing within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider petitioner's representation on merits and afford opportunity of personal hearing within four weeks.

J.Vijayakumar, Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 12.09.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶5

W.P.No.9401 of 2016 and WMP.No.8386 of 2016

¶6

J.Vijayakumar ... Petitioner Vs.

¶7

1. The State of Tamilnadu rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 2. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 3. The Commissioner, Corporation of Madurai, Madurai.

¶8

The Assistant Commissioner, Zone-I, Madurai Corporation, Madurai. ... Respondents

¶9

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's claim for issuing the petitioner's relieving order so as to join duty in the promotion post of Office Superintendent in pursuant to the order issued by the third respondent in Ma.Ni 1/55767/2008 dated 12.05.2012 with all benefits based on the petitioner's representation dated 23.9.2014.

¶10

: M/s.G.Elanchezhiyan

¶11

For Petitioner : M/s.G.Elanchezhiyan For Respondents : Mr.S.Gunasekaran, Additional Government Pleader

¶12

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

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This Writ Petition has been filed praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's claim for issuing the petitioner's relieving order so as to join duty in the promoted post of Office Superintendent in pursuance to the order issued by the third respondent in Ma.N1.1/55767/2008 dated 12.05.2012 with all benefits based on the petitioner's representation dated 23.9.2014.

¶15

Though very many contentions have been raised in this writ petition, at the time of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider his representation dated 23.09.2014.

¶16

Heard the submissions of Mr.S.Gunasekaran, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and also perused the materials placed before it.

¶17

This Court, taking into consideration the limited scope of prayer sought for by the petitioner, directs the respondents 1 and 2 to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 23.09.2014 on merits, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶19

Assistant Registrar(CS II)

¶20

//True Copy//

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

jvm

¶23

¶24

The Principal Secretary to Government, State of Tamilnadu, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.

¶25

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

¶26

The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5.

¶27

The Commissioner, Corporation of Madurai, Madurai.

¶28

The Assistant Commissioner, Zone-I, Madurai Corporation, Madurai.

¶29

+1cc to Mr.G.Elanchezhiyan, Advocate, S.R.No.51871
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.51924
W.P.No.9401 of 2016
AK(CO)
CA(03/10/2016)

¶30

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

J.Vijayakumar, v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Vijayakumar, v. The State of Tamilnadu

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

P.Pushpa Rani Vs Dr.R.Meera

G.Selvakumaran Vs The Commissioner/Director of

V.Venkatrao, Vs Tmt.M.Padmaja

R.Sumathi Vs Sampath

S.Dhanalakshmi Vs Government of Tamilnadu

P.Gunasekaran Vs The Superintending Engineer