Disposed

M.Karthikeyan, Assistant v. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by

Madras HC23 Mar 2018WP/6663/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the third respondent to consider the petitioner's pending representation seeking seniority re-fixation and notional promotion within four weeks, rather than deciding the merits of the claim on promotion and qualification in this writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed the third respondent to consider the pending representation on merits and pass orders within four weeks.

M.Karthikeyan, Assistant Vs State of Tamil… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 23.03.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA

¶5

W.P.No.6663 of 2018

¶6

M.Karthikeyan .. Petitioner
-vs-
1. State of Tamil Nadu rep.by its
Principal Secretary to Government
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department
Fort St.George
Chennai 600 009
2. Director
Commissionerate of Rural Development and
Panchayat Raj
Panagal Building
Chennai 600 015
3. District Collector
Kancheepuram District
Kancheepuram .. Respondents

¶7

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent herein to forthwith pass orders on the representation dated 12.02.2018 of the petitioner seeking notional promotion on par with junior K.Kumar and consequently re-fix his seniority above his junior in the post of Assistant and include the name of the petitioner herein in the revised panel of Assistant/Rural Welfare Officer Grade-I issued pursuant to the proceedings dated 30.01.2018 in his Rc.No.10504/2016/PA3 and promote him as Deputy Block Development Officer without insisting one year service qualification in the post of Assistant with all notional benefits on par with his junior K.Kumar.

¶8

For Petitioner :: Mr.V.R.Rajasekaran For Respondents :: Mr.V.Kadhirvelu Special Government Pleader

¶9

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

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The petitioner joined as Junior Assistant in the Panchayat Development unit of Kancheepuram District on compassionate ground from 18.2.2008. A proposal was also sent on 7.10.2013 for his regularisation. But due to administrative delay, the Government have issued orders only on 20.4.2016 regularising his appointment as Junior Assistant with effect from 18.2.2008 on compassionate ground.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that some of his juniors, more particularly, one Mr.K.Kumar, who was appointed as Junior Assistant on 27.8.2008, apart from eight others who were appointed between 18.7.2007 and 18.2.2008, was promoted overlooking the petitioner and others. Objecting to the same, the petitioner has given his representation on 12.2.2018 to re-fix his seniority in the appropriate place. This has not been taken note of, hence, his representation may be directed to be considered.

¶13

The learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents sought sufficient time to consider the pending representation on merits.

¶14

This Court, accepting his request, directs the third respondent to consider the pending representation of the petitioner on merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, W.M.P.No.8259 of 2018 is closed. No costs.

¶15

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-VII)

¶16

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶17

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

The Principal Secretary to Government
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department
Fort St.George
Chennai 600 009
2. The Director
Commissionerate of Rural Development and
Panchayat Raj
Panagal Building
Chennai 600 015
3. The District Collector
Kancheepuram District
Kancheepuram.
+ 1 cc to the Government Pleader Sr.22843
+ 1 cc to Mr. V.r. Rajasekaran, Advocate Sr.22132
W.P.No.6663 of 2018
SS(CO)
EU(11/04/2018 )

¶21

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

M.Karthikeyan, Assistant v. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Karthikeyan, Assistant v. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by

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

K.Vikram Vs The Commissioner

Jayanthi, Vs District Collector

Tagore National High School Vs The State Tamil Nadu

Rev.Sr.Lourdu Mary Vs The State of Tamilnadu

G.Sathya, Vs The Director of School

S.Chidambaram Vs The Director of School