Disposed

V.Dharmendran, v. the Secretary to Government-

Madras HC22 Jun 2017WP(MD)/17032/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court issued a direction under Article 226 to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 24.08.2012 regarding her promotion from Telephone Operator to Junior Assistant and to pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to consider the petitioner's representation dated 24.08.2012 and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

V.Dharmendran, Vs the Secretary to Government- — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED 09.12.2013

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

¶6

W.P(MD)No.17032 of 2013

¶7

R.Agilanda Nayaki ..Petitioner

¶8

¶9

1.The Director,

¶10

Medical and Rural Health Service, Teynampet, Chennai.

¶11

2.The Director,

¶12

Directorate of Medical Education,

¶13

Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.

¶14

3.The Principal,

¶15

Government Medical College Hospital, Theni, Theni District. ..Respondents

¶16

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 24.08.2012.

¶17

For Petitioner :M/s.K.Kumaravel

¶18

For Respondents :Mr.V.Muruganandam

¶19

Addl.Govt.Pleader

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This Writ Petition has been filed praying this Court for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 24.08.2012.

¶22

2.The Petitioner made a representation dated 24.08.2012 to the respondents seeking promotion from the post of Telephone Operator to Junior Assistant and subsequently the same was forwarded to the higher authorities for consideration. Since no action has been taken on the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶23

3.Considering the limited scope of the prayer made in the Writ Petition, without going into the merits of the case, a direction is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ issued to the first respondent to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 24.08.2012 and pass apprpriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of

¶24

¶25

receipt of a copy of this order.

¶26

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

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

/True Copy/

Sub- Assistant Registrar

¶31

¶32

1.The Director, Medical and Rural Health Service, Teynampet, Chennai.

¶33

2.The Director,

¶34

Directorate of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.

¶35

3.The Principal, Government Medical College Hospital, Theni, Theni District.

¶36

- 1 CC to the Special Government Pleader in SR.No.61533

¶37

vsn

¶38

W.P(MD)No.17032 of 2013 09.12.2013

¶39

gdr 27.12.2013 2P/ 5C

¶40

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

V.Dharmendran, v. the Secretary to Government-

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Dharmendran, v. the Secretary to Government-

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

Anthony Lyda, Vs Albert Lurduraj

R.Ramakrishnan Vs Shanthi

S.Vijayasarathy, Aged About Vs Dheepa @ Priya

S.Jeyaprakash, Vs the Secretary to Government-

Rajalingam Vs Muthuraja

Adaikappa Chettiar Vs K.Meenakshi