Disposed

P.Balaji v. The Managing Director

Madras HC28 Nov 2018WP/31396/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a mandate directing the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation to reinstate a conductor whose dismissal was rejected by the Labour Department. The Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to consider petitioner's representation dated 18.11.2018 and pass orders on reinstatement within four weeks.

P.Balaji Vs The Managing Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATE : 28.11.2018

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE S.VIMALA

¶5

W.P. NO. 31396 OF 2018 and W.M.P. NO. 36581 OF 2018

¶6

P.Balaji ...Petitioner

¶7

Vs -

¶8

The Managing Director

¶9

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Division – II Ramakrishna Road, Salem – 7.

¶10

The General Manager Tamil Nadu State Transport corporation (Salem) Division-II

¶11

Dharmapuri Region, Bharathipuram Dharmapuri 636 705. ...Respondents

¶12

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 20.11.2018 and reinstate the petitioner in service as Conductor in the respondent Corporation will all attendant benefits.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. K.Nagarajan

¶14

For Respondents: Ms.Rajeni Ramadoss

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Ms. Rajeni Ramadoss, learned standing counsel takes notice for the respondents.

¶17

The writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 20.11.18. The representation of the petitioner is that once the approval was not granted for the dismissal of the petitioner from service by the appropriate authority, the petitioner ought to have been reinstated. In support of the said contention, the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour in A.P. No.47/14 is relied upon, wherein the approval has been rejected by the said authority for the dismissal of the petitioner from service. Though the petitioner submitted a representation on 20.11.2018 to reinstate him, no

¶18

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

¶19

orders have been passed on the said representation. Hence, the present petition has been filed.

¶20

A perusal of the records reveal that the approval petition has been rejected as early as on 13.4.2018. Once the approval petition is rejected the necessary corollary is that the petitioner ought to have been automatically reinstated. Even though the rejection order has been passed on 13.4.18, till date the petitioner has not been reinstated. Inspite of the representation submitted by the petitioner, reinstatement has not been made. There is no reason as to why the order of reinstatement has not been passed despite the order of rejection of the approval petition.

¶21

In view of the limited relief sought for, this Court is of the view that it would be suffice to direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 18.11.2018, submitted by the petitioner, in the light of the order passed in A.P. No.47/14 and the observation made by this Court to pass orders on the said representation within a particular time frame.

¶22

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 18.11.2018, submitted by the petitioner, in the light of the order passed in A.P. No.47/14 and pass orders thereon in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

gln Sd/-

¶24

Deputy Registrar

¶25

//True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

To 1. The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Division – II Ramakrishna Road, Salem – 7. 2. The General Manager Tamil Nadu State Transport corporation (Salem) Division-II Dharmapuri Region, Bharathipuram Dharmapuri 636 705.

¶27

+1cc to Mr.K. Nagarajan, Advocate, S.R.No.81515

¶28

W.P. NO.31396 OF 2018

¶29

kak(03/01/2019)

¶30

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

P.Balaji v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Balaji v. The Managing Director

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

D.Ashok Kumar, Vs The Secretary

P.Muthiah Vs The Secretary to Government of

T.David, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

K.Saroja Vs The Director General

T.Ilayaraja, Vs Teachers Recruitment Board

T.Ilayaraja, Vs Teachers Recruitment Board