Disposed

M.Davamani, v. the Director of Municipal

Madras HC29 Nov 2016WP(MD)/3211/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench directed the second respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation regarding employment absorption on merits within four weeks. The writ petition was disposed of without going into the merits of the claim.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 15.12.2011 on merits and in accordance with law within four weeks.

M.Davamani, Vs the Director of Municipal — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.11.2016 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN W.P.(MD)No.3211 of 2013 and

¶3

M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013

M.Davamani

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Director of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai.

¶8

2.Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary, Rural Development and Local Administration, Chennai.

¶9

3.The Kodiakannal Municipality, rep. By its Commissioner, Dindigul District.

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the third respondent herein to appoint the petitioner by absorbing in the existing permanent vacancy on a regular time scale of pay as per G.O.Ms.No.21 dated 23.02.2006 with all service benefits.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.F.Deepak For Respondents : Mr.K.Guru, Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 & R2 Mr.P.Srinivas for R3

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The petitioner seeks for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to appoint the petitioner by absorbing in the existing permanent vacancy on a regular time scale of pay as per G.O.Ms.No.21 dated 23.02.2006 with all service benefits.

¶15

2.Heard Mr.F.Deepak, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.K.Guru, learned Additional Government Pleader https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent / Municipality.

¶16

¶17

After some elaborate arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it would suffice if the representation of the petitioner is disposed of, by the second respondent, on merits and in accordance with law, within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶18

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the representation of the petitioner will be considered in accordance with law.

¶19

In view of the above, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner in this Writ Petition, the second respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner, dated 15.12.2011, on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

6.With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar (CO)

¶23

/True copy/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

1.The Director of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai.

¶27

2.Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary, Rural Development and Local Administration, Chennai.

¶28

3.The Kodiakannal Municipality, rep. By its Commissioner, Dindigul District.

¶29

+1 CC to M/s.F.DEEPAK, Advocate, SR No. 71988

¶30

+1 CC to M/s. THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR No. 72423. +1 CC to M/s. P.SRINIVAS, Advocate, SR No. 74810

¶31

SKN/VSA

¶32

PSM/RL/09.02.17/2P/7C

¶33

W.P.(MD)No.3211 of 2013

¶34

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

¶35

and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013 29.11.2016

M.Davamani, v. the Director of Municipal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Davamani, v. the Director of Municipal

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

Palaniammal Vs Govindan

R.Shantha, Vs M.Rajaraman

Mary Sowmya Rose Vs Terance Alex

K.Soundarrajan Vs Kandasamy Gounder

Mallika Vs Rani Ammal

M.a.Ismail Vs the Management of Tamil Nadu