Dismissed

R.Muthuvelpandian v. the Commissioner

Madras HC1 Mar 2017WP(MD)/3526/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenged a memo directing him to report for work. The High Court disposed of the petition by directing the petitioner to resume work without prejudice to disciplinary rights.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to resume work without prejudice to rights to take disciplinary action; no wages entitled pending duty.

R.Muthuvelpandian Vs the Commissioner — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 01.03.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.3526 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)No.2856 of 2017

R.Muthuvelpandian

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Commissioner, Sivakasi Municipality, Sivakasi Town, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District. .. Respondent

¶11

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the impugned memo in Na.ka.No.10017/2016/C1, dated 30.1.2017 on the file of the respondent and to quash the same and consequently to direct the respondent to permit the Petitioner to join duty.

¶12

For Petitioner :M/s.V.Maharajan For Respondent :Mr.S.Sathish Kumar Addl.Govt.Pleader

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This Writ Petition has been filed, seeking for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the impugned memo in Na.ka.No.10017/2016/C1, dated 30.1.2017 on the file of the respondent and to quash the same and consequently to direct the respondent to permit the Petitioner to join duty.

¶15

2.Mr.S.Sathish Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent. By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶16

3.The Petitioner has challenged the impugned notice, dated 30.01.2017 directing the Petitioner to report for work, failing which, appropriate action will be taken. For any misconduct, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ nothing prevents the respondent from taking appropriate action in this case. By the impugned memo, the Petitioner has been asked to report for work. However, the learned counsel for the

¶17

¶18

Petitioner would submit that though the Petitioner reported for work, he was not permitted to report for work. The Petitioner is directed to report for work by order dated 30.1.2017 and hence the Petitioner is directed to resume work without prejudice to the rights to take disciplinary action. Till the Petitioner reports for work, from 22.1.2017, the Petitioner is not entitled to wages and it is subject to the outcome of the departmental proceedings, if any, initiated against the Petitioner.

¶19

4.With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶20

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶21

/True copy/

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

To:

¶24

The Commissioner, Sivakasi Municipality, Sivakasi Town, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.

¶25

+1cc to Mr.V.Maharajan,Advocate,SR.11529

¶26

W.P.(MD) No.3526 of 2017 01.03.2017

¶27

VSN

¶28

KK-CM-MSA-8.3.2017-2p-3c

¶29

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

R.Muthuvelpandian v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Muthuvelpandian v. the Commissioner

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

K.Chithra Rani Vs the District Collector

M/S.Dollar Industries Ltd., Vs Tangedco

V.Selvaraj Vs Pol Matilda

A.M.Murugesan Vs the Inspector of Police

M/S the Tuticorin Spinning Vs the Chairman

The Correspondent Vs the State of Tamil Nadu