Dismissed

Ashok Kumar Khadia v. Director (Operations)

Madras HC16 Apr 2018WP/10977/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought promotion and consequential benefits regarding a promotion dispute with Indian Airlines. The petitioner was absent, while counsel for the respondents appeared. The court accepted the submission that the petition became infructuous as the petitioner had joined another organization and closed the petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was closed without any costs awarded.

Ashok Kumar Khadia Vs Director (Operations) — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 16.04.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE S.VIMALA

¶5

W.P.No.10977 of 2004

¶6

Ashok Kumar Khadia ... Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

Director (Operations), Indian Airlines Ltd., Rakab Ganj Gurudwara Road, New Delhi.

¶9

The General Manager (Operations),
Indian Airlines Ltd., (Southern Region),
Meenambakkam, Chennai.
3. Indian Airlines Commercial Pilot Association,
Rep. By its Regional Secretary,
'Airlines House', ICPA,
Meenambakkam,
Chennai – 600 027. ... Respondents

¶10

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records in respect of the second respondent letter MDS:OPS:PF:2475 dated 29/30 July 2003 followed up with another letter MAA;OPS:PF:602906:063 dated 07.01.2004 and quash the same and consequently, direct the second respondent to promote the petitioner to the next higher rank with all consequential benefits with retrospective effect.

¶11

For Petitioner : No appearance
For R1 & R2 : Mr.N.G.R.Prasad
Mr.K.Srinivasa Murthy
For R3 : Mr.R.Vasudevan

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Today, when the matter came up for consideration, there is no representation for the petitioner. However, the learned counsel appearing for first and second respondents and the learned counsel appearing for third respondent are present before this court.

¶14

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

¶15

It is represented by the learned counsel for first and second respondents that even though the petitioner has challenged the promotion aspect, he left the services of the respondent organization and he has joined in some other organization. Hence, the prayer sought for in the writ petition has become infrctuous.

¶16

Recording the said submission, the writ petition is closed. No costs.

¶17

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-iv)

¶18

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ogy
To
1. Director (Operations),
Indian Airlines Ltd.,
Rakab Ganj Gurudwara Road,
New Delhi.
2. The General Manager (Operations),
Indian Airlines Ltd., (Southern Region),
Meenambakkam,
Chennai.
3. Indian Airlines Commercial Pilot Association,
Rep. By its Regional Secretary,
'Airlines House', ICPA,
Meenambakkam,
Chennai – 600 027.
+1cc to Mr.R.VASUDEVAN, Advocate, S.R.No.28697
+1cc to Mr.N.G.R. PRASAD, Advocate, S.R.No. 28041
W.P.No.10977 of 2004
TR(08/06/2018)

¶19

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

Ashok Kumar Khadia v. Director (Operations)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Khadia v. Director (Operations)

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

S.Thangaraj Vs Tamilnadu Veterinary and

Mr.N.J.Paulraj Vs the Joint Director of Agricul-

M. Velusamy, 50 Yrs, Vs Revathi

Dr.K.Thiyagarajan Vs the Director of Medical &

Kanimozhi, Vs S.Sivagami

Tmt.a.Melbin Jaya Vs Director of Elementary Educa-