Disposed

C.Ashok Kumar v. the Transport Secretary

Madras HC1 Nov 2018WP/12977/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the lack of promotion benefits for the petitioner. The High Court ordered the respondents to consider the petitioner's earlier representation and pass orders within 12 weeks without addressing the merits.

What did the court decide?

The third respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation submitted on 16.08.2012 and pass appropriate orders within 12 weeks of receipt.

C.Ashok Kumar Vs the Transport Secretary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 01.11.2018

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.No.12977 of 2013

¶6

C.Ashok Kumar ... Petitioner

¶7

vs.
1. The Transport Secretary,
The Tamil Nadu Secretariat,
Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Managing Director,
The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Villupuram Division,
3/317, Salamedu,
Villupuram 605 602.
3. The General Manager,
The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Villupuram Division III,
Kancheepuram Region,
Kancheepuram. ... Respondents

¶8

Prayer:

¶9

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to apply the statutory service rules available to review the petitioner's promotion from 01.08.2002 and to pass appropriate further orders on the petitioner's promotion.

¶10

For Petitioner : M/s. DR.R.Sampathkumar

¶11

For Respondents : M/s.A.Sri Jayanthi, Special Government Pleader, for R1 : Mr.Antony Arockia Raj for R.2 & R.3 O R D E R

¶12

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is for a direction to direct the respondents to apply the statutory service rules available to review the petitioner's promotion

¶13

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

¶14

from 01.08.2002 and to pass appropriate further orders.

¶15

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that the petitioner joined in the Transport Corporation on 29.10.1981 in the post of Conductor on daily wage. Subsequently, he was brought under the regular establishment and his services were regularized. However, the promotion and other consequential benefits as applicable to the writ petitioner with reference to the statutory Rules has not been provided.

¶16

It is contended that the benefit of promotion and consequential benefits were granted to all other similarly placed employees and the same has not been provided to the writ petitioner. In this regard the writ petitioner submitted a representation to the 3^rd respondent on 16.08.2012 . The said representation is yet to be considered.

¶17

Thus without going in to the merits of the matter, the 3^rd respondent is directed to consider the representation submitted by the writ petitioner on 16.08.2012 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petitioner is directed to enclose a copy of the representation and all relevant documents along with the order passed in this writ petition.

¶18

Accordingly the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VI)

¶20

//True Copy//

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

pkn

¶23

¶24

The Transport Secretary, The Tamil Nadu Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶25

The Managing Director,

¶26

The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,

¶27

Villupuram Division,

¶28

3/317, Salamedu, Villupuram 605 602.

¶29

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

¶30

The General Manager, The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Villupuram Division III, Kancheepuram Region, Kancheepuram.

¶31

+1cc to M/s.DR.R.Sampathkumar, Advocate, S.R.No.75547 +1cc to M/s.A.Sri Jayanthi, Advocate, S.R.No.75768

¶32

W.P.No.12977 of 2013

¶33

GJII(Co) CS/04/12/2018

¶34

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

C.Ashok Kumar v. the Transport Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Ashok Kumar v. the Transport Secretary

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

P.Subramani, Vs the Deputy Secretary

Mr. P.Rajendran, Vs the Regional Manager

M/S.Mantralayamahan Ads., Vs the Senior Divisional

V.Elaiyarani Vs the Director of Social

C.Manickam, Vs K.Senathipathi

T.Padma Vs the Director of Social