Disposed

K.Thangarasu v. Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC17 Sept 2019WP/27479/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addresses a writ petition where the petitioner, a Deputy Tahsildar, sought implementation of a Supreme Court judgment regarding his non-empanelment for the year 2007. The bench directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's recent representation and pass orders on merits within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 01.03.2019 and pass appropriate orders on merits within twelve weeks.

K.Thangarasu Vs Government of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :17.09.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

W.P.No.27479 of 2019

¶6

K.Thangarasu ..Petitioner vs 1.Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government Revenue Department, Secretariat Chennai-600 009. 2.The Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Revenue Administration Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. 3.The District Collector Namakkal District Namakkal. .. Respondents

¶7

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to implement the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment dated 08.04.2009 in SLP (C) No.9628 of 2006 and as undertaken by the 2^nd respondent in his proceedings No.sa.3(3)/47368/2006, dated 26.08.2009 and in circular No.7/2012 in Sser.3(4) 99429/2009 dated 22.06.2012 include the name of the petitioner in the appropriate place in the Panel of Deputy Tahsildar for the year 2007 in Namakkal District in the appropriate place with all consequential benefits including empanelment and promotion to the next higher posts with retrospective effect from the said date of promotion of his next immediate juniors and to grant him all consequential monetary benefits within a limited time frame.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ravi

¶9

For Respondents : Mrs.A.Srijayanthi Additional Government Pleader

¶10

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

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to implement the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment dated 08.04.2009 in SLP (C) No.9628 of 2006 and as undertaken by the 2^nd respondent in his proceedings No.sa.3(3)/47368/2006, dated 26.08.2009 and in circular No.7/2012 in Sser.3(4) 99429/2009, dated 22.06.2012 include the name of the petitioner in the appropriate place in the Panel of Deputy Tahsildar for the year 2007 in Namakkal District in the appropriate place with all consequential benefits including empanelment and promotion to the next higher posts with retrospective effect from the said date of promotion of his next immediate juniors and to grant him all consequential monetary benefits within a limited time frame.

¶13

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶14

The case of the petitioner is that he joined service as Junior Assistant on 29.08.2000 and promoted as Assistant on 29.03.2005 and as Deputy Tahsildar on 30.08.2011. The petitioner has passed the departmental tests prescribed for empanelment as Deputy Tahsildar in the year 2006 and qualified for being empanelled as a Deputy Tahsildar for the year 2007. But his name was not included in the said panel. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 08.04.2009 in SLP (C) No.9628 of 2006, revised panel ought to have been issued and name of the petitioner ought to have been placed in the appropriate place for the year 2007. In this regard, the petitioners made various representations and were in vain. In such circumstances, the petitioner has come out with this writ petition for the above stated relief.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners made various representations to the respondents. However, it would suffice, if this Court issues a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 01.03.2019 and pass appropriate orders on merits within reasonable time.

¶16

Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has also conceded the request made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶17

Considering the limited request made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court hereby directs the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 01.03.2019 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in

¶18

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

¶19

accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. No costs.

¶21

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Kj
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Government of Tamil Nadu
Revenue Department, Secretariat
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Principal Secretary and
Commissioner of Revenue Administration
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
3.The District Collector
Namakkal District
Namakkal.
+1cc to Mr.M.Ravi, Advocate SR.No.80315
W.P.No.27479 of 2019
BR(CO)
GMY(01/11/2019)

¶22

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

K.Thangarasu v. Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Thangarasu v. Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

E.Jansi Rani Vs The Director of Elementary Education

C.Madhumitha Vs The Chairman

V.Purushothaman Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Vijaya Vs The Director of Publice Health

L.R.Ganesan Vs Government of Tamil Nadu

Salem Managarachi Vs The Joint Director of Municipal