Partly allowed

S.Venkatachalapathy, v. The Managing Director

Madras HC7 Sept 2017WP/9219/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation for annual increments and promotions, which were withheld due to past allegations. The petitioner had been exonerated, and the Court ordered a decision within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to consider the representation submitted on 29.07.2017 and pass appropriate orders on merits within six weeks.

S.Venkatachalapathy, Vs The Managing Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :07.09.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.No.9219 of 2016 and W.M.P.No.8199 of 2016

¶6

S. Venkatachalapathy .. Petitioner

¶7

¶8

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited, No.31, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. .. Respondent

¶9

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of the Writ by directing the respondent herein to grant annual increments from 01.04.2009 and consequential due promotion to the petitioner within the time frame.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr. T. Ravichandran

¶11

For Respondent : Mrs.A. Sri Jayanthi

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to direct the respondent to grant the annual increments from 01.04.2009 and consequential promotions to the writ petitioner.

¶14

The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner made a submission that the writ petitioner was working as Project Officer in the respondent-Company. On account of certain allegations, a charge memo was issued against the writ petitioner which was challenged before this Court in W.P.(MD) No.3252 of 2010. The said writ petition was allowed by the learned single Judge, against which the respondent-Board preferred Writ Appeal in W.A.(MD) No.149 of 2017. The said appeal preferred by the respondent was dismissed on 11.07.2017.

¶15

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

¶16

Thus, the charges against the writ petitioner have been dropped and he was exonerated from the allegations. In this view of the matter, the writ petitioner is entitled for all the increments.

¶17

The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent-Board, made a submission that the file is in progress and under consideration of the competent authorities. The Officer, who is present from the Office of the respondent, also clarifies that the file is under consideration and appropriate orders will be passed.

¶18

Thus, this Court is of the view that a direction in this regard to consider the representation is suffice. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to consider the representation submitted on 29.07.2017 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶19

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. Sd/Asst.Registrar (CCC) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar rpl To The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited, No.31, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. + 1 cc to Mrs.A. Sri Jayanthi,Special GP,SR.64793 + 1 cc to M/s.M.Santhanaraman, Advocate,SR.65336 W.P.No.9219 of 2016 and W.M.P.No.8199 of 2016 SS(CO) NR 04/10/2017

¶20

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

S.Venkatachalapathy, v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Venkatachalapathy, v. The Managing Director

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

A.Joshua Gnanapalam Vs The Director of School

N. Devaraj Vs Murugesan

A Jayalakshmi Vs Mrs D Sabitha IAS

A.Arulraj Vs The Secretary to Government

A.Peer Mohamed Vs The Secretary

A.Selvam, S/o.v.Anandan Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu