Disposed

S.Senthilkumar, v. the Tamil Nadu State Marketing

Madras HC22 Aug 2017WP/19750/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner sought reinstatement in service. The court observed that the petitioner expressed contentment with having his representation dated 13.07.2011 considered on merits. Consequently, the court directed the respondent to consider the representation and pass orders within two months, disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 13.07.2011 and pass orders on merits within two months.

S.Senthilkumar, Vs the Tamil Nadu State Marketing — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 22.08.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN

W.P.No.19750 of 2012

S.Senthilkumar

.. Petitioner

Vs.

The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corpn.

¶10

Ltd., (TASMAC) rep. by its

¶11

District Manager, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.

¶12

.. Respondent

¶13

Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to forthwith reinstate the petitioner in service as a Salesman in the TASMAC shop by considering and passing orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 13.07.2011.

¶14

For Petitioner .. Mr.K.Selvaraj

¶15

For Respondent .. Mr.B.Nedunchezhian

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief:

¶18

to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to forthwith reinstate the petitioner in service as a Salesman in the TASMAC shop by considering and passing orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 13.07.2011.

¶19

2.The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Salesman vide appointment letter dated 28.11.2013. According to the petitioner, he was stopped from service from May, 2004. According to him, without affording any opportunity, his services came to be terminated.

¶20

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

¶21

3.When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner would be satisfied if his representation dated 13.07.2011 addressed to the respondent is considered and disposed of on merits and in accordance with law. Taking note of his submission and considering the plea of limited direction being sought from this Court, there shall be a direction to the respondent to consider of the representation of the petitioner dated 13.07.2011 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

4.With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mmi To The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corpn. Ltd., (TASMAC), Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District. +1cc to M/s.B.Neduncheziahn, Advocate sr.60269

¶23

+1cc to M/s.K.Selvaraj, Advocate sr.60282

¶24

W.P.No.19750 of 2012 ppa(co) ss(5/10/2017)

¶25

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

S.Senthilkumar, v. the Tamil Nadu State Marketing

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Senthilkumar, v. the Tamil Nadu State Marketing

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

The Management of M/S. S & S Vs the Presiding Officer

M. Kamaldass Vs Diwakar

P.Panchavarnam Vs the Tahsildar

C.Raja Gandhi Vs the Tamil Nadu State Marketing

S.Poornachandran, Vs the Director of Family Welfare

T.Nagarajan Vs the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies