Disposed

K.Nageswaran Rao v. The Chairman

Madras HC10 May 2017WP/12308/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras, without deciding on the merits of a promotion petition, directed the Chairman of the Airports Authority of India to consider the petitioner's representation filed on 02.02.2017. The court ordered the respondent to pass orders on merits within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.02.2017 and pass orders within 12 weeks.

K.Nageswaran Rao Vs The Chairman — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 10.05.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.12308 of 2017

¶6

K.Nageswaran Rao ...Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The Chairman, Airports Authority of India, Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Safdarjung Airports, New Delhi-110 003. 2.The Joint General Manager(P&A), Airports Authority of India, Southern Region, Meenambakkam, chennai-27. 3.The Regional Executive Director, Airports Authority of India, Southern Region, Meenambakkam, chennai-27. ...Respondents

¶9

Prayer: This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents herein, more particularly the first respondent to promote the petitioner from the present post of Joint General Manger (Jt.G.M.-ATM) with all the attached service benefits therein, by placing the petitioner over and above his known juniors and consider his representation dated 02.02.2017 to the post of General Manager with all the attendant benefits over and above petitioner's known juniors in the post of General Manager.

¶10

For Petitioner :M/S.A.L.Namasivayam

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Though a larger relief has been sought for in this writ petition for a direction seeking promotion, now, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner restricted the prayer to the extent of considering the representation submitted by the writ petitioner to the first respondent on 02.02.2017.

¶13

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

¶14

2.The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner contended that the writ petitioner has submitted a detailed representation stating his grievance to the first respondent and the same is yet to be considered.

¶15

3.Without going into the merits and the contentions raised in the writ petition, this Court is inclined to direct the first respondent to consider the representation submitted by the writ petitioner on 02.02.2017 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶16

This writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No
costs.
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (V.O)
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
abr/adl
To
1.The Chairman,
Airports Authority of India,
Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan,
Safdarjung Airports, New Delhi-110 003.

¶17

2.The Joint General Manager(P&A), Airports Authority of India, Southern Region, Meenambakkam, chennai-27.

¶18

3.The Regional Executive Director, Airports Authority of India, Sourthern Region, Meenambakkam, chennai-27.

¶19

+1cc to Mr.A.L.Namasivayam,Advocate sr.37081

¶20

WRIT PETITION No.12308 of 2017

¶21

nm(co) ss(15/5/2017)

¶22

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

K.Nageswaran Rao v. The Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Nageswaran Rao v. The Chairman

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

E.Selvakumari Vs The District Collector

G.Iyanar Vs The District Collector

P.M.Krishnakumar Vs the Registrar

M.Venkatesan, Vs The Principal Secretary

R.Sathees Kumar, Vs The Labour Inspector

R.Saravanan, Vs The Secretary to