Dismissed

R.Boopathi v. The Principal District

Madras HC8 Aug 2019WP/18224/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed a Writ Petition seeking quashing of a termination order and direction for reinstatement. The Court held the petition was premature as an alternate statutory appeal remedy was available under the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Act, 2016. Petitioner allowed to file statutory appeal within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to file statutory appeal within two weeks. No costs.

R.Boopathi Vs The Principal District — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 08.08.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH and

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

Writ Petition No.18224 of 2019

¶7

R.Boopathi

¶8

Office Assistant (under Termination) Sub-Court, Sankaragiri, Salem District. ...Petitioner Vs 1.The Principal District Judge, Salem. 2.The Sub-Judge, Sankaragiri, Salem District. ... Respondents

¶9

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for records pertaining to the impugned order in Roc No.3807/2019 dated 27.04.2019 on the file of first respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all attended benefits and continuity of service within a reasonable period to be fixed by this Court.

¶10

Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking quash of the order of first respondent in Roc No.3807/2019 dated 27.04.2019 and consequently, direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all attended benefits and continuity of service within a reasonable period.

¶11

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

¶12

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents. Perused the materials on record.

¶13

Petitioner was appointed as an Office Assistant by first respondent in Subordinate Judicial Ministerial Service under Direct Recruitment by the selection process and was posted at Principal District Munsif Court, Salem, in the existing vacancy. However, petitioner was terminated from service under the impugned order. Hence, the present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the said order.

¶14

Learned counsel for respondents, relying on the counter, submits that statutory appeal remedy is available to the petitioner u/s.36 of Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Services) Act, 2016 and without exhausting the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶15

This Court is of the view that when an alternate remedy is available, the present Writ Petition is premature in nature. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, petitioner is at liberty to file the statutory appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs.

¶16

Registry is directed to return the original impugned order to learned counsel for petitioner.

¶17

Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To

¶18

1.The Principal District Judge, Salem.

¶19

2.The Subordinate Judge, Sankaragiri, Salem District.

¶20

+1 cc to M/s.R.Neelakandan,Advocate Sr.No. 67806 AKM/16.09.19/2P-7C /

¶21

Writ Petition No.18224 of 2019

¶22

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

R.Boopathi v. The Principal District

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Boopathi v. The Principal District

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

C.K.Premkumar Vs The Registrar General

S.Natarajan Vs The Registrar General

R.Vijay Kumar, Vs The District Collector

B.Chinnasamy Vs The Sub Collector

Velu Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

P.Ganesan Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer