Allowed

P.Chinnasamy v. the Senior Regional Manager

Madras HC5 Mar 2018WP(MD)/4551/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an order designating him as 'Additional Supervisor' instead of his substantive post of 'Supervisor'. The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court held the description erroneous and quashed the order to ensure the petitioner continues as Supervisor with attending service benefits.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order describing the petitioner as 'Additional Supervisor' was quashed; the petitioner is directed to continue as Supervisor.

P.Chinnasamy Vs the Senior Regional… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 05.03.2018

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.4551 of 2018 and WMP(MD)No.4648 of 2018

¶7

P.Chinnasamy ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Senior Regional Manager,

¶10

TASMAC, Madurai Region, Office of the Senior Regional Manager,

¶11

Madurai District, Madurai.

¶12

2.The Deputy Collector/ District Manager,

¶13

TASMAC, Madurai North,

¶14

Madurai. ... Respondents

¶15

Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records connected to the order of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.953/2017/G dated 06.02.2018 and quash the same as illegal in so far as it relates to mentioning the petitioner as additional supervisor, consequently directing the respondents to allow him to continue as supervisor with all attending service benefits.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Malaikani

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.H.Arumugam

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Mr.H.Arumugam, the learned standing counsel takes notice for the respondents.

¶20

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

¶21

3.The petitioner is presently working as a Supervisor in TASMAC liquor outlet No.5457 run by the TASMAC. One Pandi was implicated in a criminal case. While suspending him, he has been asked to hand https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ over the charge to the petitioner herein. In the order dated 06.02.2018, the petitioner was described as an Additional

¶22

¶23

Supervisor. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition has been filed.

¶24

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner showed the copy of the earlier proceedings wherein the petitioner has been described only as a Supervisor. There is no doubt that the petitioner is holding the substantive post of Supervisor.

¶25

5.Therefore, the order impugned in this writ petition is quashed. It is made clear that the petitioner will continue to discharge his duties of the Supervisor and that his description as an Additional Supervisor in the impugned order is erroneous.

¶26

6.Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶29

/True copy/

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

+2CC TO M/S.S.MALAIKANI, ADVOCATE, SR NOS.52845, 52689 +1CC TO M/S.H.ARUMUGAM, ADVOCATE, SR NO.53257

¶32

W.P(MD)No.4551 of 2018 and WMP(MD)No.4648 of 2018 05.03.2018

¶33

skm

¶34

MS/SKN-RSK/SAR-4/18.04.2018/2P.4C

¶35

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

P.Chinnasamy v. the Senior Regional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Chinnasamy v. the Senior Regional Manager

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

V.Palaniyandi, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

A.Sivanantham, Vs the Director

S.Ravi Vs the State of Tamilnadu

S.Alagaraj, Vs the General Manager/

Mohan, S/O.Arumugam, Vs the Senior Commandant

Punjab National Bank Vs the Joint Commissioner