Disposed

V.Soman v. the Managing Director

Madras HC18 Feb 2020WP(MD)/3211/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition by directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's pending representation regarding his annual increment claim and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks, reserving judgment on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 09.01.2020 on its merits and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

V.Soman Vs the Managing Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.3211 of 2020

¶2

V.Soman

¶3

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.02.2020 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH W.P.(MD) No.3211 of 2020

¶4

/Vs./

¶5

The Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., New Railway Station Road, Kumbakonam-612 001.

¶6

... Respondent

¶7

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to sanction annual increment to the petitioner for the service rendered for the period from 01.01.2008 to 31.12.2008 along with consequential benefits.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Thangamani For Respondent : Mr.P.Balasubramanian

¶9

Standing Counsel

¶10

ORDER

¶11

By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶12

Though the petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to sanction annual increment to the petitioner for the service rendered for the period from 01.01.2008 to 31.12.2008 along with consequential benefits, in my view, such a decision is to be taken by the respondent and in case, the petitioner is aggrieved against such any decision, it would be appropriate to approach this Court.

¶13

The petitioner would submit that he has already made representation on 09.01.2020 in this regard, which is said to be pending. If the said representation is directed to be disposed of within stipulated time, the ends of justice could be secured.

¶14

Whenever a representation is made to a statutory authority to redress the claim of the employee, there is a duty cast upon the respondents to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. Such an inaction would amount to dereliction of duties and thereby this Court would be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

1/2

¶16

W.P.(MD) No.3211 of 2020

¶17

thereby direct such authority to consider the representation within the stipulated time.

¶18

In view of the above observations, there shall be a direction to the respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 09.01.2020, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any of its view with regard to the claim made by the petitioner in his representation and it is for the respondent to consider it in accordance with law.

¶19

With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶20

// True Copy //

¶21

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶22

rmk

¶23

To:

¶24

The Managing Director,

¶25

The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., New Railway Station Road, Kumbakonam-612 001.

¶26

+1 CC to Mr.P.BALASUBRAMANIAN, Advocate ( SR-6883[F] dated 18/02/2020 )

¶27

+1 CC to Mr.C.THANGAMANI, Advocate ( SR-6893[F] dated 18/02/2020 )

¶28

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.3211 of 2020 18.02.2020

¶29

VB(28.02.2020) 2P 4C

¶30

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

¶31

2/2

V.Soman v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Soman 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

Gandhi Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

M.Murugan Vs the Secretary to the Govt

N.Sivabalan Vs the Personal Assistant to the Commissioner of Adi Dravidar Welfare

C.Nambinarayanan Vs The Commissioner

A.K. Rajendran Vs the Managing Director

M.Saraswathi Vs The Secretary to Government