Disposed

D.Sivasu, v. the Director of Rural

Madras HC14 Dec 2018WP(MD)/24702/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner sought regularization of service gaps including absence and removal periods. The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court directed the second respondent to dispose of the representation on merits within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 12.01.2015 on merits within eight weeks.

D.Sivasu, Vs the Director of Rural — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 14.12.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.24702 of 2018

D.Sivasu

... Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The Director of Rural Development, Panagal Building,

¶11

Saidapet, Chennai-600 015.

¶12

2.The District Collector, Pudukkottai District. ..Respondents

¶13

PRAYER:Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents herein to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 12.01.2015 regarding to regularize the petitioner's absence from duty, awaiting period and period of removal from service in-order to get service benefits, etc., within a reasonable time as may be fixed by this Court.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.RM.Arun Swaminathan

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.A.Muthukaruppan Additional Government Pleader

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶18

2.By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶19

3.The petitioner was originally appointed as Junior Assistant in Aranthangi Panchayat on 23.11.1983. Subsequently, his service was regularized. Then, he was removed from service by order, dated 10.08.1999. The same was later set aside and the petitioner rejoined duty on 19.01.2002. His grievance is that the period of absence from duty, the period of removal etc., are yet to be regularized. The petitioner gave a representation on 12.01.2015 in this regard. He further submitted that the second respondent is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the competent authority to pass orders on his representation.

¶20

¶21

4.In view of the above, the second respondent is directed to dispose of the petitioner's representation, dated 12.01.2015, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

5.With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶23

Sd/Assistant Registrar(P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-I) To 1.The Director of Rural Development, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai-600 015. 2.The District Collector, Pudukkottai District. +1 cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No.100418 TA DS RSK SAR1 18 12 2018 2P 4C W.P.(MD)No.24702 of 2018 14.12.2018

¶24

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

D.Sivasu, v. the Director of Rural

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Sivasu, v. the Director of Rural

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.Rajasekar Vs the Regional Transport Officer

T.Rajarajan, Vs the Appellate Authority /

M.Karuppaiah Sadachi, Vs the Govt. of Tamil Nadu

T.Suseela, Junior Inspector Vs the Director / Commissioner

R.Vinoth, S/O.Ramaiya, Vs the Tamil Evangelical Lutheran

C.Arumugam, Vs the Management of