Disposed

S.Balakrishnan, v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC5 Jan 2017WP/29193/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the second respondent, the Chief Engineer (General), to consider the petitioner's representations dated 21.3.2006 regarding incentive increment for M.B.A. qualification and pass orders on merits within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to consider representations dated 21.3.2006 regarding M.B.A. incentive increment and pass orders on merits within 12 weeks.

S.Balakrishnan, Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.01.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

W.P.No.29193 of 2013

¶6

S.Balakrishnan ... Petitioner

¶7

vs.

¶8

1.The State of Tamilnadu rep. by

¶9

its Secretary to Government,

¶10

Highways and Minor Ports Department,

¶11

Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.

¶12

2.The Chief Engineer (General), Highways Department, Chepauk, Chennai – 5,

¶13

now redesignated as Director General of Highways,

¶14

Chepauk, Chennai – 5. ... Respondents

¶15

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to dispose of the representations dated 21.3.2006 and 12.4.2010 of the petitioner in regard to incentive increment for acquiring M.B.A.Qualification and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a stipulated time in the light of the orders issued in G.O.RT.No.307, Highways (H.K.2) Department, dated 6.12.2000.

¶16

For petitioner : Mr.G.Elanchezhiyan

¶17

For respondents : Mr.P.Rajalakshmi,

¶18

Government Advocate ORDER

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner made a representation dated 21.3.2006 to the second respondent with regard to incentive increment for acquiring M.B.A. Qualification. As the said representation was not considered by the second respondent, another representation dated 12.4.2010 was made by the petitioner to the second respondent. But, the said representations were not considered

¶20

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

¶21

by the second respondent so far. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to the second respondent to consider his representations.

¶22

In view of the limited scope of the prayer, without going into the merits of the matter, the second respondent is directed to consider the representation dated 21.3.2006 with regard to incentive increment for acquiring M.B.A.Qualification and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

The petitioner is directed to furnish a coy of the representation dated 21.3.2006 along with a copy of this order to the second respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed
of. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
asvm
To
1.Secretary to Government,
The State of Tamilnadu,
Highways and Minor Ports Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.
2.The Chief Engineer (General),
Highways Department,
Chepauk, Chennai – 5,
now redesignated as
Director General of Highways,
Chepauk, Chennai – 5.
+1cc to Mr.G.Elanchezhiyan, Advocate Sr.1309
+1cc to the Government pleader Sr.1676
W.P.No.29193 of 2013
vd[co]
srg 8/2/2017

¶25

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

S.Balakrishnan, v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Balakrishnan, v. the State of Tamilnadu

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

G.Marichamy, Vs the Chief Secretary to

Paruchuri Global Foundation Vs Chief Educational Officer

Paruchuri Global Foundation, Vs Chief Educational Officer

B.Tamilarasi Vs the Secretary

Indo Fly Ash Association Vs the Union of India

P.Jessie Santha Kumari Vs the State of Tamilnadu