Disposed

M.Vasanthakumari, v. the Managing Director

Madras HC27 Apr 2019WP(MD)/10467/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This consensuul written petition sought a writ of Mandamus directing the Transport Corporation to pay unpaid salary and benefits accrued during the petitioner's medical treatment. The court, without going into merits, directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation on merits after hearing. The petition stands disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The respondents were directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 25.03.2019 and pass appropriate orders on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing within eight weeks.

M.Vasanthakumari, Vs the Managing Director — Medical Negligence | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 27.04.2019

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.10467 of 2019

M.Vasanthakumari

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Tirunelveli Limited, Kattabomman Nagar, Tirunelveli.

¶11

2.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Tirunelveli Limited, Ranithottam, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to disburse the salary and other remaining benefits to the petitioner for the period from 01.04.2015 to 20.03.2017 totally for 24 months 20 days as the said Medical Treatment of spinal problem, heart problem, blood pressure and neck bone problem which was incurred in the course of employment of respondents Transport Corporation in terms of Section 47(1) of the Persons with Disabilities Equal Opportunities, Protection of Right and Full Participation Act, 1995.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.L.Prabakaran For Respondents : Mr.K.Sathya Singh

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to disburse the salary and other remaining benefits to the petitioner for the period from 01.04.2015 to 20.03.2017 as the medical treatment.

¶16

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ admission itself.

¶17

¶18

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that she was originally appointed as a Driver under the respondent Transport Corporation and she suffered with spinal problem. Subsequently, after legal battle from 01.04.2015 to 20.03.2017, the petitioner was provided with an alternative employment. However, the petitioner was not paid with salary for the above said period. The representation made by the petitioner in that regard has not been considered by the respondents. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶19

4.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly submitted that the representation of the petitioner would be considered by the respondents on merits.

¶20

5.Considering the limited scope of the prayer sought for in this petition, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, directs the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 25.03.2019 and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Such an exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

6.With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶22

Assistant Registrar (Records)

¶23

// True Copy //

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶25

¶26

+1CC TO MR.L.PRABAKARAN, Advocate Sr. No.63891 +1CC TO MR.K.SATHIYASINGH, Advocate Sr. No. 63893

¶27

W.P(MD)No.10467 of 2019 27.04.2019

¶28

MT(CO)

¶29

TR (23.05.2019) 2P 3C

¶30

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

M.Vasanthakumari, v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Vasanthakumari, v. the Managing Director

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

Soundararajan Durai Vs the District Educational

B.Viswanathan Vs the Prl. Secretary and Ex

P.Kanniyammal, Vs the Commissioner of Municipal

J.Aravind, Vs the Chief Engineer(Personnel)

M.Vasanthal Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

G.Arul Jeyarani, Tamil Pandit Vs the State of Tamil Nadu