Disposed

P.Padmanaban, v. the Director of Rural

Madras HC17 May 2017WP/10164/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking to quash dismissal order and reinstate petitioner. Court held interference inappropriate due to pending statutory appeal, directing the Director of Rural Development to dispose of it within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

The first respondent is directed to dispose of the pending Statutory Appeal filed by the petitioner within 12 weeks. This writ petition is disposed of.

P.Padmanaban, Vs the Director of Rural — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 17.05.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SUBRAMANIAN

¶5

W.P.No.10164/2014 & MP.Nos.1 to 3/2014

¶6

P.Padmanaban .. Petitioner

¶7

..Vs..
1. The Director of Rural Development,
Panagal Park,
Saidapet, Chennai.
2. The District Collector,
Coimbatore.
3. The Block Development Officer,
Village Panchayat,
Pollachi South,
Pollachi Taluk,Coimbatore District.
4. The President,
Seelankampati Panchayat,
Pollachi South Panchayat Union,
Pollachi Taluk,
Coimbatore. .. Respondents

¶8

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 2^nd respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.1387/2013/K4 dated 28/01/2014 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all monetary and service benefits.

¶9

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

¶10

ORDER

¶11

Heard Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/s.M.Srividhya learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.

¶12

The petitioner challenges the proceedings dated 28.01.2014 in and by which he was dismissed from the post of Panchayat Assistant.

¶13

The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that as against the order of the dismissal, the petitioner has filed the Statutory Appeal before the first respondent and it is pending.

¶14

In view of the pendency of the Statutory Appeal before the first respondent, I do not think it will be in the fitness of things to interfere with the order of dismissal passed by the second respondent in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence the first respondent is directed to dispose of the Statutory Appeal filed by the petitioner after giving an opportunity to the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶15

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, all the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶16

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶17

//True Copy//

¶18

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶19

¶20

¶21

The Director of Rural Development, Panagal Park, Saidapet, Chennai.

¶22

The District Collector, Coimbatore.

¶23

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

¶24

The Block Development Officer, Village Panchayat, Pollachi South, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District.

¶25

The President, Seelankampati Panchayat, Pollachi South Panchayat Union, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore.

¶26

+1cc to M/s.M.Srividhya, Advocate, S.R.No.37612
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.37692

¶27

W.P.No.10164/2014
NM(CO)
CS/13/06/17

¶28

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

P.Padmanaban, v. the Director of Rural

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Padmanaban, v. the Director of Rural

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

S.Guruswamy Vs Union of India

V.Venkata Siva Kumar Vs Council of Institute of

The Deputy Director Vs M/S.Ponnusamy Nadar

Kala, W/o.Babu Vs The Union of India

J.Manassay Vs The Director of School

M.Chandrasekaran Vs The State of Tamilnadu