Dismissed

R.Saravanan, v. The Tamilnadu Electricity

Madras HC25 Jun 2018WP/11932/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Five petitionsers challenged an order refusing permanent absorption, seeking a writ under Article 226. The Supreme Court directed petitioners to submit fresh representations and documents to enable the respondent to pass appropriate orders within twelve weeks, dismissing the petitions in the meantime.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondent to receive fresh representations/documents and decide within twelve weeks on amalgamation/absorption.

R.Saravanan, Vs The Tamilnadu Electricity — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :25.06.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.Nos.11932 to 11937 of 2018

¶6

R.Saravanan ..Petitioner in WP.No.11932/2018 J.Mahesh ..Petitioner in WP.No.11933/2018 R.Alagiri, ..Petitioner in WP.No.11934/2018 R.Rajininath ..Petitioner in WP.No.11935/2018 A.Gopalakrishnan ..Petitioner in WP.No.11936/2018 Senthilvelan ..Petitioner in WP.No.11937/2018

¶7

¶8

1.The Tamilnadu Electricity Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd., Represented by The Chairman, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.

¶9

2.The Chief Engineer(Personnel) Tamilnadu Electricity Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd., No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.

¶10

3.The Superintending Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd., Tiruvannamalai.

¶11

4.The Inspector of Labour, Tiruvannamalai. ... Respondents in all WPs

¶12

COMMON PRAYER : Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 3 rd respondent in his Letter No.12625-1/SE/ADO/ADM-3/ADS/ADA.2/2017, No.12625/SE/ ADO/ADM-3/ADS/ADA.2/2017, No.12625-3/SE/ADO/ADM-3/ADS/ADA.2/ 2017, No.12625-5/SE/ADO/ADM-3/ADS/ADA.2/ 2017 No.12625-4/SE/ADO/ADM-3/ADS/ADA.2/ 2017 No.12625-2/SE/ADO/ADM-3/ADS/ADA.2/ 2017 respectively all dated 05.10.2017 and quash the same and thereby direct the respondents 1 to 3 to absorb the petitioner in the 1 st respondent corporation as permanent employee as Field Assistant/Helper.

¶13

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

¶14

For Petitioners :Mr.N.Suresh(in all W.Ps) For Respondents :Mr.G.Anand For M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co. for R1 to R3 (in all W.Ps) M/s.A.Srijayanthi, Spl GP for R4 (in all W.Ps)

¶15

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶16

The relief sought for in these writ petitions is to call for the records of the 3 rd respondent in his Letter No.126251/SE/ADO/ADM-3/ADS/ADA.2/2017 dated 05.10.2017 and quash the same and thereby direct the respondents 1 to 3 to absorb the petitioners in the 1 st respondent corporation as permanent employee as Field Assistant/Helper.

¶17

2.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners states that the Honourable Division Bench has passed order in Writ Appeal No.1302/2003 granting the benefit of permanent absorption in respect of contract labourers. The similar benefit to be extended to the writ petitioners also.

¶18

3.The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents made a submission that the permanent absorption made pursuant to the orders of the Honourable Division Bench is only with reference to the terms and conditions stipulated in 12(3) Settlement, dated 10.08.2007. Thus, the case of the writ petitioners would be considered in the light of the terms and conditions stipulated in 12(3) Settlement and the respondents have no objection in considering the case of the writ petitioners in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench as well as based on 12(3) Settlement and pass appropriate orders, within a period of twelve(12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶19

4.In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners the orders passed by the 3 rd respondent in his Letter No.12625-1/SE/ADO/ADM-3/ADS/ADA.2/2017 dated 05.10.2017 under the Permanent Status Act need not be given effect to. The writ petitioners are directed to submit a fresh representation and the relevant documents along with the orders passed by this Court.

¶20

5.Accordingly, all the writ petitions stand disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶22

//True Copy//

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

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

¶25

kak

¶26

To
1.The Tamilnadu Electricity Generation &
Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
Represented by The Chairman,
No.144, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 2.
2.The Chief Engineer(Personnel)
Tamilnadu Electricity Generation &
Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
No.144, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 2.
3.The Superintending Engineer,
Tamilnadu Electricity Generation &
Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
Tiruvannamalai.
4.The Inspector of Labour,
Tiruvannamalai.
+1cc to M/s.T.S.Goplan & Co., Sr.No.40150/18
sm:9.7.2018
W.P.Nos.11932 to 11937 of 2018

¶27

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

R.Saravanan, v. The Tamilnadu Electricity

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Saravanan, v. The Tamilnadu Electricity

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

M/S.Records and Data Vs the Deputy Commissioner of

M.Ettiappan Vs Revenue Secretary

S.Udayakumar, Vs C.Vijayakumar, IAS

G.Elangovan, Vs the Commissioner

A.Arivazhagnan, Vs the Union of India

M.Murugavel, B.E., Vs the Commissioner