Allowed

K.Mani, v. the Principal Secretary to

Madras HC25 Jan 2018WP(MD)/1248/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, a retired Deputy Tahsildar, sought a writ of mandamus directing the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, to pass orders on proposals regarding the refixation of his seniority from the year 1996. The court directed the respondent to pass appropriate orders by 30.04.2018.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to pass appropriate orders on the proposals regarding refixation of the petitioner's seniority by 30.04.2018.

K.Mani, Vs the Principal Secretary to — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 25.01.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.1248 of 2018

K.Mani

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Principal Secretary to Government,

¶11

Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶12

The Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent i.e., the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Chennai, to pass appropriate orders on the proposals sent by the Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chennai in his Letter No. fbj vz;.gzp3(4)94624/2010 ehs; 27.12.2014 regarding refixation of petitioner's seniority in the cadre of Deputy Tahsildar of the year 1996 within a specified time frame that may be fixed by this Court.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Visvalingam For Respondents : Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah Additional Government Pleader

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶17

2.By consent of both the parties, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶18

3.The petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2014. His grievance is that his name in the cadre of Deputy Tahsildar should have been included in the approval list of the year 1996 itself. In this regard, proposals have been sent by the Commissioner of Revenue https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Administration, Chennai, vide his letter dated 27.12.2014. But the first respondent is yet to pass orders there on.

¶19

¶20

4.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the first respondent shall pass appropriate orders on merits in accordance with law on the proposals sent by the second respondent vide order dated 27.12.2014, on or before 30.04.2018.

¶21

5.The said submission is recorded and the Writ Petition stands allowed accordingly. No costs.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar (T&P)

¶24

/True Copy/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶28

The Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

¶29

- 1 CC TO SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER IN SR No. 44773 + 1 CC TO Mr.S.VISVALINGAM, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 44154

¶30

TSG

¶31

TE/JC/SAR-4 : 16/03/2018 : 2P/5C

¶32

W.P.(MD) No.1248 of 2018 25.01.2018

¶33

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

K.Mani, v. the Principal Secretary to

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Mani, v. the Principal Secretary to

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

R.Rajesh Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

M.Durairasu, Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

A.Thangaraj Vs the Director General of Police

G.Thenmozhi, W/O.R.Kalimuthu, Vs Tamilnadu Gneration and

K.Kumaran, S/O.Kulanthai Vs the Secretary to Govt.

M.Mahalingam Vs the State of Tamil Nadu