Disposed

M.Thanigai Malai, v. The Secretary to Government

Madras HC11 Jun 2018WP/10032/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a former employee of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to dispose of his representation concerning the confirmation of his post. The court directed the third respondent to consider the representation and pass orders within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

The third respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.02.2018 and pass orders on merits within twelve weeks.

M.Thanigai Malai, Vs The Secretary to Government — Madras HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :11.06.2018

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No.10032 of 2018

M.Thanigai Malai

..Petitioner

1.The Secretary to Government, Electricity Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶8

2.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.

¶9

3.The Superintending Engineer ( O&M) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Kancheepuram Electricity Distribution Circle, Kancheepuram. .. Respondents

¶10

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents herein to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 19.02.2018 with regard to the confirmation of the petitioners post in the Electricity Department.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ramesh For Respondents : Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co O R D E R

¶12

The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to direct the respondents to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 19.02.2018 with regard to the confirmation of the petitioner's post in the Electricity Department.

¶13

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that the writ petitioner was employed in the respondent Board with effect from 05.04.1995 onwards and till 30.03.1999. Since the petitioner is employed in the Electricity Board, he is unable to avail the benefit of permanent status.

¶14

However, such a contention is disputed by the respondents. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents states that if the petitioner is otherwise qualified

¶15

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

¶16

in accordance with the scheme of absorption, then his case will be considered in accordance with the rules and on par with other employees.

¶17

In view of the contentions raised on behalf of both parties, this Court is of an opinion that it is suffice if a direction is issued to consider the representation submitted by the writ petitioner. It is needless to mention that the respondents are bound to verify the services records of the writ petitioner and consider the case in accordance with the rules in force.

¶18

Accordingly, the third respondent is directed to consider the representation submitted by the writ petitioner on 19.02.2018 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve 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. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IX) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Secretary to Government, Electricity Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009. 2.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002. 3.The Superintending Engineer ( O&M) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Kancheepuram Electricity Distribution Circle, Kancheepuram. +1cc to Mr.R.Ramesh, Advocate SR.No.36077 +1cc to Mr.T.S.Gopalan & Co., Advocate Sr.No.36312 VGII(CO) sm:22.6.2018

¶20

W.P.No.10032 of 2018

¶21

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

M.Thanigai Malai, v. The Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Thanigai Malai, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner Vs v.Mahadevan

V.Mahadevan, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

M/s.Delphi-Tvs Diesel Systems Vs Ito (Osd)/ Secretary

M. Hidhayathulla, Vs Pradeep Yadav I.A.S

R. Benjamin Vs Thiru. Gunasekaran

M/s.Daze Electro Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Assistant Provident Fund