Allowed

S.Vijayakumar v. The Principal Secretary to Government

Madras HC8 Mar 2019WP/2131/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition filed for non-consideration of a representation concerning seniority revision, the High Court directed the second respondent to consider the matter on merits and pass an order within 12 weeks. The petition was disposed of with the direction to enclose relevant documents.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 07.01.2019 and pass an order on merits within 12 weeks.

S.Vijayakumar Vs The Principal Secretary to… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 08.03.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.No.2131 of 2019

¶6

S.Vijayakumar .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs. 1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration, Water Supply & Sewerage Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Buildings, Chennai – 600 003. 3.The Deputy Commissioner (Revenue & Finance), Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Buildings, Chennai – 600 003.

¶8

4.The Assistant Commissioner (G & AP), Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai – 600 003. .. Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 07.01.2019 within a time frame.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Kempraj

¶11

For Respondents : Mr.A.N.Thambidurai for R1 Special Government Pleader Mr.Karthikaa Ashok for RR2 to 4

¶12

The grievance of the writ petitioner is that his claim for revision of seniority on par with his junior is yet to be considered. The representation submitted by the writ petitioner in this regard on 07.01.2019 is kept pending. Thus the writ

¶13

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

¶14

petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition. Thus in the facts and circumstances, the second respondent is directed to consider the representation submitted by the writ petitioner dated 07.01.2019 and pass an orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶15

The writ petitioner is directed to enclose the copy of the representation and all other relevant orders along with the orders passed in the present writ petition. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above direction. However, there is no orders as to costs.

¶16

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
arb/ssb
To
1. The Principal Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Municipal Administration, Water Supply &
Sewerage Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Commissioner,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Ripon Buildings,
Chennai – 600 003.
3. The Deputy Commissioner (Revenue & Finance),
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Ripon Buildings, Chennai – 600 003.
4. The Assistant Commissioner (G & AP),
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Chennai – 600 003.
+1 cc to Mr.Karthikaa Ashok, Advocate, S.R.No.22189
+1 cc to Mr.M.Kempraj, Advocate, S.R.No.22013
W.P.No.2131 of 2019
VBA(CO)
SSM(28/03/2019).

¶17

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

S.Vijayakumar v. The Principal Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Vijayakumar v. The Principal Secretary to Government

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

B.S.Venkatesan Vs The Secretary to Government

S.Thomsson Vs The Commissioner of Police

K.Tamilselvi Vs The Life Insurance Corporation Of India

J.Pandian Vs The Director General of Police

C.Rajaram, Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

Logammal Vs The Director General of Police