Allowed

B.Baskaran v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC4 Jul 2018WA/1396/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed a writ appeal against the dismissal of a petition seeking regularization of services. The court directed the respondents to consider the appellant's request for regularization if he submits service details within one month, to decide within three months. The appeal was disposed without costs.

What did the court decide?

Directions given to submit service particulars within one month; respondents directed to consider regularization within three months thereafter.

B.Baskaran Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 4.7.2018

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH

¶4

AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.A.No.1396 of 2018

¶7

1 B.Baskaran

¶8

... Appellant Vs 1 The Government of Tamil Nadu rep by its secretary Public works Department Fort st. George Chennai-9 2 The Chief Engineer (General) Public works Department Chepauk Chennai-5 3 The Chief Engineer W.R.O. Chennai Region Chepauk Chennai-5

¶9

4 The Superintendent Engineer WRC Chennai Region Chepauk Chennai-5 5 The Executive Engineer Public Works Department WRC Krishna Water Supply Project Division-I Chepauk Chennai-5

¶10

6 The Executive Engineer Public works Division WRC Krishna Water Supply Project Division-8 Ambattur Chennai-53 ...Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 24.5.2018 passed in W.P.No.12887 of 2018 on the file of this court.

¶12

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

¶13

WP.No.12887 of 2018

¶14

The Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issuance a writ of Mandamus directing the fourth respondent to consider the petitioners representation dated 20.04.2018 and to appoint the petitioner after giving personal hearing to him and pass suitable orders within stipulated time as may be fixed by this Honourable court

¶15

For appellant : Ms.G.Devi For respondents : Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram Special Government Pleader JUDGMENT (Judgment of the court was made by HULUVADI G.RAMESH, J.)

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram, learned Special Government Pleader who takes notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶17

It appears that the petitioner was engaged by the fourth respondent as driver on daily wages since 1983 and accordingly, he is said to have put in continuous service as NMR for about ten years and sought for regularisation in the light of G.O.Ms.No.134(C) PWD Department dated 7.5.2010 and since his claim was not considered favourably, he filed the writ petition.

¶18

The learned Single Judge, having observed that the appellant was engaged as long as the work was available, based on the interim order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal dated 21.12.2000 in O.A.No.8651 of 2000, but, he has not produced the details as to the final outcome of the said Original Application and he was also no diligent enough to take any steps when he was discontinued in May 2014, dismissed the writ petition.

¶19

We do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge so as to interfere with the same. However, we make it clear even now, the petitioner could get all the materials with regard to his service particulars and other details as per the requirement of G.O. 134 (C2) PWD Department dated 7.5.2010 and submit the same to the authorities, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and in such event, it is for the respondents to consider the same positively on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 3 months thereafter. The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶20

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VII)

¶21

//True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

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

¶23

ssk. To:
1	The Government of Tamil Nadu rep by its secretary Public works Department Fort st. George Chennai-9
2	The Chief Engineer (General) Public works Department Chepauk Chennai-5
3	The Chief Engineer W.R.O. Chennai Region Chepauk Chennai-5
4	The Superintendent Engineer WRC Chennai Region Chepauk Chennai-5
5	The Executive Engineer Public Works Department WRC Krishna Water Supply Project Division-I Chepauk Chennai-5
6	The Executive Engineer Public works Division WRC Krishna Water Supply Project Division-8 Ambattur Chennai-53
+1cc +1cc GSP(	to Mr.V.Raghupathi, Advocate, S.R.No.43268 to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.43622 & 43375 W.A.No.1396 of 2018 06/08/2018)

¶24

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

B.Baskaran v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Baskaran v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

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

The Chairman Vs Sri Seethalakshmi Steel

The Union of India Vs M.Sampath Kumar

The Government of Tamil Nadu Vs v. Dhanasekaran

The State of Tamilnadu Vs v.M.Rathinavelu

D.Manikandan Vs The District Collector

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs S.T.S.Padmanaban