Disposed

S.Jayaselan v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC20 Feb 2017WP/10645/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions filed by a retired worker seeking regularisation of service were disposed of without deciding merits. The Court granted liberty to approach the Chief Executive Officer of CMDA for consideration of the grievance.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file application to Chief Executive Officer, CMDA, for consideration of representation on merits within 3 weeks.

S.Jayaselan Vs the Secretary to Government — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 20.02.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

W.P.No.10645 of 2011

¶6

S.Jayaselan .. Petitioner

¶7

vs. 1.The Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat Fort St.George, Chennai – 9. 2.The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Gandhi Irwin Raod, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. 3.The Chief Administrative Officer, Marketing Management Committee, Koyambedu Wholesale Market, Chennai –92. .. Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner as Mazdoor or any other equivalent post with effect from 01.06.2000 with all consequential benefit including seniority arrears of pay etc.,.

¶9

For petitioner : Mr.R.Syed Mustafa

¶10

For respondents 1 & 3 : Mr.A.Rajaperumal, Additional Government Pleader For 2^nd respondent : Mr.N.Sampath, Standing Counsel for CMDA

¶11

ORDER

¶12

According to the petitioner, he had been working from 01.06.2000 on NMR basis in the capacity of Mazdoor and in the year 2005, he was directed to function as Market Supervisor. Suddenly, he was not permitted to attend the work. Therefore, he made a representation on 21.4.2011 to the third respondent seeking to offer employment and regularise his service.

¶13

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

¶14

The learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent submitted that it is not the third respondent who is competent to deal with the subject matter but the Chief Executive Officer, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Chennai. Therefore, if the petitioner has any grievance with regard to his employment, he has to approach the competent authority, viz., the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Chennai. If any such representation is received by the Chief Executive Officer of the CMDA, the same will be considered by him in accordance with law.

¶15

Considering the above fact, without going into the merits of the case, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file an appropriate application/representation to the Chief Executive Officer, CMDA, within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any such application/representation is made to the Chief Executive Officer, CMDA, he shall consider the same on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

¶16

The Writ Petition is disposed of, with the above direction. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar asvm To 1.The Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.

¶17

2.The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Gandhi Irwin Raod, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. 3.The Chief Administrative Officer, Marketing Management Committee, Koyambedu Wholesale Market, Chennai – 92. Copy to: The Chief Executive Officer, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Chennai.

¶18

+1cc to Mr.N. Sampath, Advocate, S.R.No.10758 +1cc to Mr.Syed Mustafa, Advocate, S.R.No.11123 W.P.No.10645 of 2011 LRS(CO) EU 4.4.17

¶19

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

S.Jayaselan v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Jayaselan v. the Secretary to Government

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.Vidya Alias Vidyawathi Vs the Commissioner

Palaniyammal, Vs The District Collector

A.Chithambaram Vs The Direct Revenue Officer

P.Muthukumaran Vs the Director General of

S.Kavunthurai, Vs the District Collector

S.Muttuvanchery, Vs the District Collector