Disposed

Rajendran, S/O.Subramanian, v. the Government of India

Madras HC21 Feb 2019WP(MD)/2524/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-line order directed respondents, including the Protector of Emigrants, to conclude proceedings regarding a petitioner's employment grievance and salary claim within four months under Article 226. The court disposed of the writ petition granting a direction to complete the enquiry. No costs were awarded.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to conclude entire proceedings within four months from date of receipt of this order.

Rajendran, S/O.Subramanian, Vs the Government of India — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 21.02.2019

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

WP(MD)No.2524 of 2019

¶7

Rajendran ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Government of India, Rep.by Foreign Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, South Block Buildings, Cabinet Secretariat, New Delhi. 2.The Protector of Emigrants, Gruha Kripa Buildings, M.G.Road, Hyderabad. 3.The District Collector, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai. ... Respondents

¶8

PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to conclude the enquiry upon Grievance No.GR143176 dated 20.11.2017 by considering my objection dated 12.10.2018 and allied documents within a stipulated time.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Balakarthick For R1 and R2 : Mr.Rajesh Saravanan

¶10

ORDER

¶11

Heard the learned counsel on either side. The petitioner is based in Pudukottai District. He went to Dubai for employment. The petitioner's case is that working conditions were so horrible that he had to return India. But the petitioner is having certain service related grievance against his former employer. The petitioner also claims that he has to be paid his salaries. He is also demanding compensation. Therefore, he sought the intervention of the second respondent for sustaining his claim against his erstwhile employer. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's claim https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was lodged before the second respondent.

¶12

¶13

2.The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 states that the matter is presently at the stage of enquiry.

¶14

3.Therefore, the respondents are directed to conclude the entire proceedings within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶15

Sd/-

¶16

Assistant Registrar(Writs) // True Copy //

¶17

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS )

¶18

¶19

1.The Foreign Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, South Block Buildings, Cabinet Secretariat, New Delhi.

¶20

2.The District Collector, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai. 3.The Protector of Emigrants, Gruha Kripa Buildings, M.G.Road, Hyderabad. +1 CC to M/s.B.RAJESH SARAVANAN, Advocate SR-49128 +1 CC TO SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER IN SR No.49156 +1 CC to M/s.S.BALAKARTHICK,Advocate SR-49538

¶21

WP(MD)No.2524 of 2019 21.02.2019 skm

¶22

PK/05.04.2019 : 2P/7C

¶23

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

Rajendran, S/O.Subramanian, v. the Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendran, S/O.Subramanian, v. the Government of India

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

Rabeesa Begam Vs the Inspector of Police

A.Bose, S/O.Aanga Thevar, Vs the Secretary to Government

R.Kalaiselvan, Vs the Joint Registrar of

M/S.Koya &Company Construction Vs the Chief Engineer

S.Saravanan, Vs the Regional Manager

Arammal, D/O. Appavu(Late) Vs the District Collector