Disposed

C.Subash Pandaram v. the Chirman

Madras HC27 Jan 2017WP(MD)/1320/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the petitioner's posting status. The court directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation on merits within four weeks without expressing any opinion on the case's merits. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation on merits and pass orders within four weeks of the order date.

C.Subash Pandaram Vs the Chirman — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.01.2017 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY W.P.(MD)No.1320 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD)No.1102 of 2017

C.Subash Pandaram

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Chairman,

Tamil Nadu Generatiion and Distribution Corporation Ltd., No.144, Anna Salai,

¶9

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,

¶10

Chennai-600 002.

¶11

2.The Chief Engineer/Personnel,

¶12

Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., No.144, Anna Salai,

¶13

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai-600 002.

¶14

.. Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 29.08.2016 based on the guidelines issued by the second respondent in Memo No.114124/G11/G111/ 2001-2, dated 03.01.2002 within a stipulated time as fixed by this Court and consequently post the petitioner as Junior Engineer Mechanical Grade-I, as per his panel seniority in Tuticorin.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Saravanakumar For Respondents : Mr.A.V.Ramanathan ***

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 29.08.2016 based on the guidelines issued by the second respondent in Memo dated 03.01.2002 within a time frame and subsequently, post the petitioner as Junior Engineer Mechanical Grade-I, as per panel seniority in Tuticorin Thermal Power Station, Tuticorin.

¶19

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that it would be suffice to direct the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 29.08.2016 within a time frame.

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. Mr.A.V.Ramanathan, learned Counsel taking notice for the respondents submitted that the second respondent may be directed to

¶21

¶22

consider the petitioner's representation on merits and in accordance with law within a time frame.

¶23

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on either side, taking into consideration the limited prayer sought for in the writ petition, without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the case, I direct the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 29.08.2016 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24

With the above observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar( )

¶27

/True Copy/

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

¶30

1.The Chairman,

¶31

Tamil Nadu Generatiion and Distribution Corporation Ltd., No.144, Anna Salai,

¶32

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai-600 002.

¶33

2.The Chief Engineer/Personnel,

¶34

Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., No.144, Anna Salai,

¶35

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai-600 002.

¶36

+1cc to Mr.M.SaravanaKumar, Advocate Sr.No.4458

¶37

ssl

¶38

AE/RR-BS/06.02.2017/2p/4c

¶39

W.P.(MD)No.1320 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD)No.1102 of 2017 27.01.2017

¶40

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

C.Subash Pandaram v. the Chirman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Subash Pandaram v. the Chirman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.S.Palanisamy Vs Renganath

K. Thangam Vs Subburaj

T.G.Sankaranathan Vs K.B.Sanji Reddy

K.S. Sivanathan Vs Principal Chief Conservator of

M.Sivakumar, S/O.a.Muniandi, Vs the District Collector

Tvl.Lego Marbles Vs the Commissioner of