Disposed

N.Asokan, S/O.R.C.Natarajan v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC29 Jul 2021WP/25026/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a 2009 suspension order through a writ petition. At the last hearing, counsel for both sides submitted that the petitioner had expired or could not be traced. The court held that nothing survived in the petition upon the petitioner's death and disposed of the matter without merits.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of without any order as to costs; M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 closed.

N.Asokan, S/O.R.C.Natarajan Vs the Secretary… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 29.07.2021

¶3

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶4

Writ Petition No.25026 of 2011 & M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2011

¶5

N.Asokan ...Petitioner

¶6

The Secretary, Public Works (E1) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.

¶7

The Engineer in Chief, WRO and Chief Engineer/General Public Works Department, Chepauk, Chennai-5. ...Respondents

¶8

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondent in connection with the impugned order passed in GO (D) No.391 Public Works E1 Dept. dated 24.07.2007 and GO D No.267 Public Works E1 Dept dated 20.07.2009 and quash the same and further direct the respondent to instate the petitioner into service.

¶9

The petitioner challenges the order of suspension dated 20^th July 2009 in the present proceedings. At the last hearing on 18.06.2021, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State took time to ascertain and report on the status of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. At the hearing today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has been unable to contact or even trace the petitioner whereas the learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner has expired.

¶10

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

¶11

In the light of the aforesaid submissions and keeping in view of the fact that an order of suspension passed in the year 2009 has been challenged in this writ petition, nothing survives in this writ petition. Accordingly, W.P.No.25026 of 2011 is disposed of without going into the merits thereof and without any order as to costs and M.P.Nos.1&2 of 2011 are also closed.

¶12

Sd/-

¶13

Assistant Registrar(CS VI)

¶14

//True Copy//

¶15

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶16

¶17

The Secretary, Public Works (E1) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.

¶18

The Engineer in Chief, WRO and Chief Engineer/General Public Works Department,

¶19

Chepauk, Chennai-5.

¶20

+1 CC to The Government Pleader, Sr.No. 36957.

¶21

Writ Petition No.25026 of 2011 & M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2011

¶22

RSV(CO) LS(07/09/2021)

¶23

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

N.Asokan, S/O.R.C.Natarajan v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Asokan, S/O.R.C.Natarajan v. the Secretary to Government

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

Sanji Steels Vs Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank

M.Karpagam Vs Commissionerate for the Welfare of Differently Abled

Rohit Nath @ Rohit Rabindernath Vs Heb Hana Bank Ltd.

J.Jayaraj Vs Director General of Police

Lakshmikanth Kalathi Vs the Commissioner of Transport

P.Rajasekaran, Vs the Director of School