Disposed

S.Arumugam, v. The Chairman and Managing

Madras HC12 Nov 2018WP/21223/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner, an employee of TNG&DCL, sought a direction under Article 226 for the respondents to consider his representation dated 15.05.2018 seeking promotion to Foreman Grade I after his previous promotion orders were cancelled without notice.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 4th respondent or any competent respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 15.05.2018 and pass orders thereon within six weeks. No costs.

S.Arumugam, Vs The Chairman and Managing — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 12.11.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE S.VIMALA

¶5

W.P.No.21223 of 2018

¶6

S.Arumugam ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs. 1. The Chairman cum Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. 2. The Chief Engineer, Personnel, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. 3. The Chief Engineer, North Chennai Thermal Power Station Stage-I, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Chennai – 120. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Purchase & Administration, North Chennai Thermal Power Station Stage-I, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Chennai – 120. .. Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, to direct the 1^st respondent to grant promotion to the post of Foreman Grade I by considering the petitioner's representation dated 15.05.2018.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Anand Kumar for M/s.Thamzharasi Law Firm For Respondents : Mr.P.R.Dhilipkumar, Standing Counsel

¶10

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

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

The petitioner worked as Contract Labourer in the respondent Corporation from 1995 to 1999 and he was appointed as Helper on 01.05.1999 and posted to North Chennai Thermal Power Station. While so, he was placed under suspension on 19.02.2000 by the 4^th respondent on the allegation that he produced bogus educational certificate at the time of appointment. Thereafter, the respondent Corporation issued BP No.27 dated 07.11.2002 for reinstatement of all helpers who produced bogus certificates imposing a punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of three years. Pursuant to the same, the 4^th respondent has revoked the suspension order by an order dated 12.05.2004 and he joined duty on 14.05.2004 at Meter Relay Test Section/Sub Division-I under the control of the 4^th respondent. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Supernumerary Fitter Grade-II, by an order dated 27.06.2012 and he joined the said post on the same day. While so, the 4^th respondent, by an order dated 07.12.2012, cancelled the promotion order dated 27.06.2012, without giving notice. In respect of the same, the petitioner made several requests before the respondents to withdraw the cancellation of promotion order and grant him promotion with all monetary benefits, which was not considered. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation dated 13.07.2016 to the 3^rd respondent, subsequent to which, the 4^th respondent issued promotion order dated 18.01.2017. Again, the 4^th respondent cancelled the promotion order dated 18.01.2017 without giving any notice to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner made a representation dated 15.05.2018 to the first respondent requesting him to grant promotion. However, the said representation has not been considered. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court, seeking a direction to the 1^st respondent to grant promotion to the post of Foreman Grade I by considering the his representation dated 15.05.2018.

¶13

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that it would suffice, if the petitioner's representation dated 15.05.2018 is directed to be considered by the 1^st and 4^th respondents within the stipulated time.

¶14

Mr.Dhilip Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents takes notice and submitted that the 1^st and 4^th respondents would consider the representation of the petitioner and pass orders thereon.

¶15

In view of the limited prayer sought for herein, this Court, without going into the merits of this case, directs the 4^th respondent or any other competent respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 15.05.2018 and to pass orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, within a

¶16

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

¶17

period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶19

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar

¶20

//True Copy//

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar
ogy
To
1. The Chairman cum Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd.,
No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.
2. The Chief Engineer, Personnel,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd.,
No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.
3. The Chief Engineer,
North Chennai Thermal Power
Station Stage-I,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd., Chennai – 120.
4. The Superintending Engineer,
Purchase & Administration,
North Chennai Thermal Power
Station Stage-I,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd., Chennai – 120.
+1cc to Mr.P.R.Dhilipkumar, Advocate, S.R.No.77541
+1cc to M/s.Thamzharasi Law Firm, Advocate, S.R.No.76979

¶22

W.P.No.21223 of 2018
VBA(CO)
CS/08/01/2019

¶23

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

S.Arumugam, v. The Chairman and Managing

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Arumugam, v. The Chairman and Managing

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.Ravikumar Vs The Secretary to Government

G.K.Thennavan Vs The Managing Director

D. Murugesan Vs The Managing Director

R.Arul, S/o.Ramasamy Vs Additional Director General of

V.Ramani, Vs The Assistant Director of Local Fund Audit

S.Kumaravel Vs The Secretary