Dismissed

S.Senthil Kumar, v. the Principal District Judge

Madras HC9 Oct 2018WP(MD)/21109/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court held that since the impugned order was appealable, it was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with the petitioner granted four weeks to file a pending appeal which must be disposed of on merits without considering delay.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted four weeks time to file an appeal which must be disposed of on merits without considering delay; no costs.

S.Senthil Kumar, Vs the Principal District… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 09.10.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.21109 of 2018 and WMP(MD)No.18905 of 2018

S.Senthil kumar

... Petitioner

vs.

The Principal District Judge, Dindigul,

¶11

Dindigul District.

¶12

The Enquiry Officer/Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magisterial level), Palani,

¶13

Dindigul District.

¶14

The District Munsif, Nilakkottai,

¶15

Dindigul District. ... Respondents

¶16

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in connection with impugned order passed by the1st respondent in his proceedings in D.P.No.3/2017/A1 dated 14.06.2018 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all attended monetary benefits with continuity of service.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sathishbabu

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu

¶19

O R D E R [Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.]

¶20

Inasmuch as the order impugned is appealable, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. However, considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is granted four weeks time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to file an appeal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ As and when such appeal is filed, the appeal will have to be disposed of on merits without rejecting it on the ground of delay.

¶21

¶22

2.This writ petition is dismissed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, WMP(MD)No.18905 of 2018 is closed. SD

¶23

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ( CO ) TRUE COPY

¶24

SUB ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ( CS II )

¶25

¶26

The Principal District Judge, Dindigul, Dindigul District. 2. The Enquiry Officer/Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magisterial level), Palani, Dindigul District. 3. The District Munsif, Nilakkottai, Dindigul District. 1CC TO MR. N. SATHISH BABU, ADVOCATE SR 89373 mj VB SV SAR 2 12 10 2018 2P 5C W.P.(MD) No.21109 of 2018 09.10.2018

¶27

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

S.Senthil Kumar, v. the Principal District Judge

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Senthil Kumar, v. the Principal District Judge

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

K.Shanthi, Vs the Principal Secretary to

K.Parameshwari Vs the Superintendent of Police

A.Nandini Vs Union of India Rep by Its

E.Samtitus Mani, Vs the Secretary to Govt.

T. Rajakumari Vs the Superintendent of Police

Umasankari Vs the Inspector General of