Elaiyappan,S/o.Munian v. The State of TamilNadu
Case brief
What is this about?
Single-judge court considered a writ petition regarding appointment as Gang Mazdoor. Petitioner submitted documents to prove service. Court directed respondents to reconsider the representation in light of new evidence and dispose it within eight weeks.
What did the court decide?
Respondents directed to reconsider representation dated 30.03.2018 in light of new documents and pass orders within eight weeks.
What the court decided
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.11.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE S.VIMALA
W.P.No.21109 of 2018
Elaiyappan ...Petitioner
versus
1.The state of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Highways Department, Chennai – 9.
2.The Director General,
Highways Department,
No.76 Sardar Vallabaipatel Road,
Guindy, Chennai – 25.
3.The Divisional Engineer,
Highways Department,
Gopichattypalayam,
Erode District.
4.The Assistant Divisional Engineer,
Highways Department,
Bhavani, Erode District. ... Respondents
Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representtion dated 30.03.2018 in the light of the letter in Memo No.2/07/A1 Dated 28.01.2008 issued by the 4th respondent and direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner
herein in the existing or future vacancies as Gang Mazdoors in regular time scale of pay in consonance with the orders passed by this Hon'ble court in W.P.Nos.911 to 937/2009 dated 18.06.2009 which was upheld by the Division
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondents are bound to consider the petitioner's representation for appointment as Gang Mazdoor in light of additional documents filed.
Whether prior orders and principles of natural justice require reconsideration of the petitioner's continuous service claim.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Elaiyappan
- respondent
The state of Tamil Nadu
- respondent
Secretary to Government, Highways Department
- respondent
Director General, Highways Department
- respondent
Divisional Engineer, Highways Department
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court