Disposed

M.Periyasamy v. The Chairman cum Managing

Madras HC6 Dec 2018WP/27736/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition seeks a mandamus directing the Chief Engineer (Personnel) to consider representations for retrospective promotion as Junior Assistant (Administration). The Court held that entertaining the merits is for the respondent and disposed of the petition by directing action within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directive to the second respondent to consider representations dated 03.01.2014 and 09.04.2015 and pass orders on merits within eight weeks.

M.Periyasamy Vs The Chairman cum Managing — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 06.12.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

Writ Petition No.27736 of 2017

¶6

M.Periyasamy

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

vs.
1. The Chairman cum Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
144, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2. The Chief Engineer (Personnel)
TANGEDCO,
144, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.

¶9

The Superintendent Engineer,
Erode Generation Circle,
TANGEDCO,
Uratchikottai,
Bhavani,
Erode – 638 302. ....Respondents

¶10

Writ Petition filed under section 226 of the constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 2^nd respondent to consider and pass orders on the representation dated 03.01.2014 and the reminder dated 09.04.2015 of the petitioner that taking his date of appointment as an Assessor viz., 09.07.1999 as the date of posting as Junior Assistant (Administration).

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Elangovan For Respondents : Mr.P.R.Dilipkumar, Standing Counsel O R D E R

¶12

The petitioner seeks for a mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to consider his representation dated 03.01.2014 and the reminder dated 09.04.2015, wherein and whereby, the petitioner sought for granting retrospective operation of his promotion as Junior Assistant (Administration) with effect from the date on which he was promoted to the post of Assessor.

¶13

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

¶14

2. Heard both sides.

¶15

Whether the petitioner's claim is entertainable or not is for the second respondent to consider and decide. Therefore, this Court, at this stage, is not expressing any view on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, however, as the writ petition is filed seeking for a mandamus to pass orders on the representation, this Writ petition is disposed of by directing the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 03.01.2014 followed by a reminder dated 09.04.2015 and pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶16

s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS-III)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
vsi
To
1. The Chairman cum Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
144, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2. The Chief Engineer (Personnel)
TANGEDCO,
144, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
3. The Superintendent Engineer,
Erode Generation Circle,
TANGEDCO,
Uratchikottai,
Bhavani,
Erode – 638 302.
+1 CC to Mr.S.Doraisamy, Advocate sr 83958.
+1 CC to Mr.P.R.Dilipkumar, Advocate sr 84075.
W.P.No.27736 of 2017
CP(CO)
SP(26/12/2018)

¶17

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

M.Periyasamy v. The Chairman cum Managing

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Periyasamy v. The Chairman cum 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

Nagaraj Vs The Managing Director

A.Mariasengol Raj Vs The State of Tamil Nadu rep by

C.Panchavarnam, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu rep by

V. Ravikumar, Vs The Sub Registrar

T.Devi Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Sridhar Rajesh Vs Inspector General of