Disposed

K.Suganthi v. The State of tamil Nadu

Madras HC14 Nov 2018WP/28156/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an Assistant Engineer with 26 years of unblemished service, filed a writ petition seeking direction to the respondents to consider her representation for promotion to Assistant Divisional Engineer. The Court directed the second respondent to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.06.2018 and pass appropriate orders on merits within three months.

K.Suganthi Vs The State of tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14.11.2018

¶2

CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE S.VIMALA W.P.No.28156 of 2018

¶4

K.Suganthi ... Petitioner

¶5

versus

¶6

The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by the Principal Secretary, Highways Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.

¶7

The Director General, Highways Department, Chennai – 5. ... Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of mandamus, to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 19.06.2018 and consequently, grant her promotion to the post of Assistant Divisional Engineer, from the date of promotion of her Junior with all service, seniority, backwages and monetary benefits.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Sai Krishnan For Respondents: Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, Special Government Pleader ORDER

¶10

This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 19.06.2018.

¶11

It is the case of the petitioner that she had been working as Assistant Engineer with unblemished service of 26 years.

¶12

2.1. It is claimed by the petitioner that not even a single promotion had been given to the petitioner for the past 26 years, which is discriminatory. Claiming that she has to be promoted to the next higher post of Assistant Divisional Engineer, she made a representation dated 19.06.2018 to the respondents. But, the same has

¶13

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

¶14

not been considered by the respondents till date. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.

¶15

The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that though the consent of TNPSC is required, the representation of the petitioner would be considered by the respondents, and if considered, consent of TNPSC would be sought for.

¶16

Accordingly, recording the statement made by the Special Government Pleader, there will be a direction to the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 19.06.2018 and to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶17

With the above direction, the writ petition is
disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS viii)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ogy
To
1. The Principal Secretary,
Highways Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.
2. The Director General,
Highways Department,
Chennai – 5.
+1cc to Mr.T.Sai Krishnan , Advocate SR.No. 78075
W.P.No.28156 of 2018
ASK(24/12/2018)

¶18

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

K.Suganthi v. The State of tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Suganthi v. The State of tamil Nadu

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

T.Veerasami, S/o.Thozhan Vs The Director,Rural Development

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

S.Arumugam, Vs The Chairman and Managing

M.Thiruselvam, Vs The Director General

T.Lakshmanan, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

K.Anbalagan Vs The Managing Director