Disposed

S.Sivaraj v. the Commissioner

Madras HC13 Aug 2021WP/4803/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the cancellation of his appointment as night watchman via a writ petition. The court recorded that the petitioner was reinstated in 2011 and retired in 2016, rendering the petition infructuous. The writ petition was disposed of as closed without expressing any opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of as closed (infructuous) and orders as to costs were refused.

S.Sivaraj Vs the Commissioner — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATE : 13.08.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶5

W.P.NO.4803 OF 2009 & M.P.NO.1 OF 2009

S.Sivaraj

... Petitioner

.Vs.

The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Keelvelur, Nagappattinam District.

¶10

The District Collector, Nagappattinam District, Nagappattinam.

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER:-

¶13

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records connected with the impugned order Na.Ka.No.3143/2008/A1 dated 3.12.2008of the 1^st respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all benefits.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Arumugam

¶15

for Mr.G.Elanchezhiyan

¶16

For Respondent : Mr.R.Ragavendran for Mr.R.Murali for R1

¶17

Mr.C.Selvaraj Government Advocate for R2

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Mr.K.Arumugam, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for writ petitioner, Mr.R.Ragavendran, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for first respondent and

¶20

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

¶21

Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned counsel for second respondent are before this Virtual Court.

¶22

2. Captioned writ petition has been filed assailing

¶23

cancellation of appointment of writ petitioner as night watchman, which was vide an 'order dated 03.12.2008 in Na.Ka.No.3143/2008/A1' (hereinafter impugned order' for the sake of convenience and clarity) made by the first respondent.

¶24

3. Learned counsel for writ petitioner and learned counsel

¶25

for first respondent submit in one voice that post writ petition the writ petitioner was reinstated vide proceedings dated 22.01.2011 made by the first respondent and was permitted to retire on 31.07.2016. Both learned counsel go on to further submit in one voice in unison that captioned writ petition has therefore become infructuous. This stated position of the writ petitioner and first respondent is recorded.

¶26

In the light of the narrative thus far, captioned writ petition is disposed of as closed (having become infructuous) without expressing any opinion or views on the merits of the matter. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2009 is also disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar(CS II)

¶29

//True Copy//

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

gpa

¶32

¶33

The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Keelvelur, Nagappattinam District.

¶34

The District Collector, Nagappattinam District, Nagappattinam.

¶35

+1cc to Mr.G.Elanchezhiyan , Advocate, S.R.No.40631

¶36

W.P.No.4803 of 2009 & M.P.No.1 of 2009

¶37

PCH(CO)

¶38

CT/13/09/2021

¶39

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

S.Sivaraj v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Sivaraj v. the Commissioner

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

V.Santhanakrishnan, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

P.Venkatesan, Vs Tamilnadu State Transport

R.Nathamuni Vs the Management of Metropolitan

R.Ravi Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

S.P.Senthil Kumar Vs the Director General of Police

M. Thirunavukarasu 3-E Vs the Director