Dismissed

V.Mageshkumar, v. the General Manager

Madras HC6 Jan 2017WP/25549/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a directive for the respondent corporation to dispose of the petitioner's request for compassionate appointment. The High Court directed the first respondent to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders within three months, without delving into the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

The first respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 3.5.2013 and pass appropriate orders within three months of receipt of this order.

V.Mageshkumar, Vs the General Manager — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 06.01.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

W.P.No.25549 of 2013

¶6

V.Mageshkumar .. Petitioner

¶7

1.The General Manager, Bharath Heavy Electrical Ltd., (BAP), Ranipet, Vellore District, Tamilnadu – 632 406.

¶8

2.The Assistant General Manager, Human Resource Department, Bharath Heavy Electrical Ltd., (BAP),

¶9

Ranipet, Vellore District,

¶10

Tamilnadu – 632 406. .. Respondents

¶11

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider and pass order on the representation dated 3.5.2013 of the petitioner for his compassionate appointment in the respondents Industry (Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd.,) by taking into consideration of scheme for Compassionate appointment within a time frame.

¶12

For petitioner : Mr.K.Lavan

¶13

For respondents : Mr.Sidharth

¶14

for M/s.A.V.Arun

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Mr.Sidharth for M/s.A.V.Arun, learned counsel, takes notice for the respondents.

¶17

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that if the representation of the petitioner has not been disposed of till now, the same will be considered in accordance with law by the respondents.

¶18

In view of the limited scope of the prayer, without going into the merits of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the first respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 3.5.2013 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with

¶19

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

¶20

law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to submit a copy of the representation dated 3.5.2013 along with a copy of this order to the first respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶22

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
asvm
To
1.The General Manager,
Bharath Heavy Electrical Ltd., (BAP),
Ranipet, Vellore District,
Tamilnadu – 632 406.
2.The Assistant General Manager,
Human Resource Department,
Bharath Heavy Electrical Ltd., (BAP),
Ranipet, Vellore District,
Tamilnadu – 632 406.
+1cc to Mr.A.V. Arun, Advocate, S.R.No.1808
+1cc to Mr.K. Lavan, Advocate, S.R.No.1442
ks(CO)
md(06/02/2017)
W.P.No.25549 of 2013

¶23

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

V.Mageshkumar, v. the General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Mageshkumar, v. the General Manager

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.Santhosh, Vs the Secretary

K.Naveen Kumar Vs State of Tamilnadu

R.Kothandaraman Vs State of Tamilnadu

K.Nachimuthu Vs the Ditrict Manager II

T.Saraswathi, Vs the District Collector

Anna Poorani Vs the State Rep.by the District