The High Court dismissed two pending writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution as infructuous upon recording the petitioners' endorsement confirming the prayers sought had become inoperative.
Dismissed both writ petitions as infructuous. No costs awarded. Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.09.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.Nos.10243 and 10244 of 2004
And
W.P.M.P.Nos.11958 and 11960 of 2004
Dr.K.Ramu ... Petitioner in W.P.No.10243 of 2004 Dr.Muruganandham ... Petitioner in W.P.No.10244 of 2004
Vs.
Prayer in W.P.No.10243 of 2004:
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the Government order Ms.No.250, Rural Development Department dated 14.09.2000 issued by the first respondent herein quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 5 to extend all the terminal benefits to the petitioner treating him as a full time Government Servant.
Prayer in W.P.No.10244 of 2004:
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the Government order Ms.No.250, Rural Development Department (E5) dated 14.09.2000 issued by the first respondent herein quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 5 to extend all the terminal benefits to the petitioner treating him as a full time Government Servant.
For Petitioners : Mr.B.Pugalendhi For Respondents : Mrs.K.Bhuvaneswari for R1 to R4 Government Advocate Mr.S.T.S.Murthy for R5 C O M M O N O R D E R The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the relief sought for in these writ petitions have become infructuous and hence the writ petitions may be dismissed as infructuous. He has also made an endorsement to that effect in the bundle. 2.Recording the endorsement made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, these writ petitions are dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar pri To 1. The Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9. 2. The Secretary to Government, Indian Medicine and Homeopathy Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9. 3. The Director of Rural Development, Panagal Buildings, Saidapet, Chennai – 15.
W.P.Nos.10243 and
10244 of 2004
And
W.P.M.P.Nos.11958 and
11960 of 2004
RR(CO)
CS/27/11/17
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petitions seeking terminal benefits are maintainable considering the relief sought became infructuous.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dr. K. Ramu
Dr. Muruganandham
State of Tamil Nadu
Director of Rural Development
Director of Local Fund Audit
Commissioner, Srivilliputhur Panchayat Union
M. Dhandapani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
