Disposed

J.Samuel Prabhakaran, v. The District Collector

Madras HC6 Apr 2018WP/8053/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order directs respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's representations regarding regularization as Village Assistant and consequential benefits, rejecting substantive adjudication on merits and issuing a 12-week deadline for final orders.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit documents; Respondents directed to consider representations and pass orders on merits within 12 weeks.

J.Samuel Prabhakaran, Vs The District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 06.04.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

W.P.No.8053 of 2018

J.Samuel Prabhakaran

...Petitioner

Vs 1.The District Collector Coimbatore District. 2.The District Revenue Officer Coimbatore District. 3.The Tahsildar Coimbatore North Taluk Coimbatore District. ... Respondents

¶9

PRAYER : Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents, particularly the 1st respondent, to regularize the service of the petitioner as village Assistant/Headmen with effect from 01.06.1998 and give all consequential benefits for the order in O.A.No.4885 of 1996 dated 04.11.2003 by consider the representation dated 25.08.2014 submitted by the petitioners and to pass appropriate orders thereon on merits and in accordance with law within a time to be specified by this Hon'ble Court.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganesan For Respondents: Mr.V.Kadhirvelu

¶11

Special Government Pleader

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The relief sought for in this writ petition i s for a direction to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the writ petitioner as Village Assistant/Headmen with effect from 01.06.1998 in pursuant to the orders passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.4885 of 1996 dated 04.11.2003 to consider the representation dated 25.08.2014 submitted by the petitioner.

¶14

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

¶15

2.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that the writ petitioner was appointed as Village Assistant on 30.11.1992 on temporary basis in the village of Odanthurai, Coimbatore district. Subsequently, he was terminated from service. Thereafter, reinstated in pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.35695 of 2005 dated 03.01.2006. The writ petitioner is serving as Village Assistant for the past more than 11 years after reinstatement.

¶16

3.However, the pay as applicable and the regular annual increments are not paid to the writ petitioner. In order to redress the grievances the writ petitioner submitted representations to the first respondent on 25.08.2014 and 27.11.2016, which are yet to be considered.

¶17

4.Thus, without going into the merits of the matter the first respondent is directed to consider the representations submitted by the writ petitioner on 25.08.2014 and 27.11.2016 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

5.Accordingly, the writ petitioner is directed to enclose the copies of the representations and all other relevant documents along with the orders passed in this writ petition.

¶19

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶20

maya To

¶21

1.The District Collector, Coimbatore District. 2.The District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore District. 3.The Tahsildar, Coimbatore North Taluk, Coimbatore District.

¶22

W.P.No.8053 of 2018

¶23

SJ(CO) TR(19/04/2018)

¶24

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

J.Samuel Prabhakaran, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Samuel Prabhakaran, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Karthika, Vs Director General of Police

K.Sakthivelu Vs The Principal Secretary

The General Manager Vs the Appellate Authority

The President Vs The Presiding Officer

M.Murugesan, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

S.Vijaya, W/o.Subramani (Late) Vs The State of Tamil Nadu