The High Court dismissed the Writ Appeal as infructuous because the appellants had complied with the earlier court order by passing a Government Order. Consequently, the connected Misc. Petition was also closed. No adjudication on merits took place.
The writ appeal was dismissed as infructuous. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE: 01.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
W.A.No.1745 of 2013 and M.P.No. 1 of 2013
Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.
v.
N. Dhanapal ... Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order made in W.P.No.25653 of 2012, dated 21.09.2012
Prayer in WP.No.25653 of 2012: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the Issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in Mu.Mu.No. AAG2/44803/2011 dated 28.11.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1 to 4 respondents to count half of the service rendered by the petitioner from the date of Joining the service as Plot Watcher that is on 01.09.1979 to 31.08.2004 along with regularised service rendered by the respondent as Mali from 01.09.2004 to 31.12.2008 as qualifying service and send the revised proposal
to the 5th respondent as to grant pension with all consequential benefits and arrears with interest.
For Appellants : Ms. Geetha Thamaraiselvan Special Government Pleader
For Respondents : Ms. Selvi Rajesh
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by M. DURAISWAMY, J.)
When the Writ Appeal is taken up for hearing, Ms.Geetha Thamaraiselvan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and Ms. Selvi Rajesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the appellants have complied with the orders of this court made in W.P.No.25653 of 2012, dated 21.09.2012, by passing an Government Order in G.O.3(D) No.74, Environment and Forest (FR-2) Department, dated 27.11.2013, hence nothing survives for adjudication in the Writ Appeal.
2. Recording the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the Writ Appeal is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-VII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Rj
To:
5 The Accountant General of Tamil Nadu, Office of the Accountant General Office at Teynampet, Chennai – 18.
+1cc to Mr.Selvi Rajesh, Advocate, S.R.No.63260
+1cc to the Special Government Pleader, S.R.No.62884
W.A.No.1745 of 2013 and
M.P.No. 1 of 2013
GPL(CO) SB(14/12/2021)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether there is a need to adjudicate the Writ Appeal after the appellants complied with the earlier court order.
Whether the Writ Appeal becomes infructuous following the passing of a Government Order.
Whether the connected Miscellaneous Petition should remain opened or be closed.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Government of Tamil Nadu
N. Dhanapal
M. Duraiswamy
J. Sathya Narayana Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
