Dismissed

Neyveli Lignite Corporation, v. Neyveli Lignite Corporation

Madras HC20 Oct 2021WP/8213/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking redesignation and seniority benefits for store staff. The petition was dismissed for non-prosecution as the petitioner failed to appear and no instructions were available despite service of notice.

What did the court decide?

None. Writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution.

Neyveli Lignite Corporation, Vs Neyveli Lignite… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 20.10.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶5

W.P. No.8213 of 2009 and M.P.No.2 of 2009

¶6

Neyveli Lignite Corporation Store Keepers and Transport Overseers Association, Rep. by its General Secretary G.Pandurangan, C/20, Pandicherry Road, Block II, Neyveli-607 803, Cuddalore. ...Petitioner Vs

¶7

1.Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., rep. By its Director (Personnel), Corporate Office, Neyveli-607 801.

¶8

2.The General Manager, (Personnel and Administration), Neyveli Lignite Corporaqtion Ltd., Neyveli-1.

¶9

3.The Deputy General Manager, (Personnel and Administration) Corporate Office, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., Neyveli-1.

¶10

4.Chief Personnal Manager, (Personnel and Administration), now designated on Chief Manager, (Personnel and Administration) Corporate Office, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., Neyveli-1.

¶11

5.S.Rajmohan 6.K.Subbiah 7.G.Balachandar 8.G.Mohan Gandhi 9.S.Sommiah 10.K.Manivannan 11.M.Vetrivelu

¶12

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

¶13

12.T.Mahadevan 13.A.Pavanasam 14.T.Muruganandam 15.A.Yesudas 16.P.Sundararajan 17.R.Rajan 18.R.Sankaran 19.T.A.Balaji 20.A.Nagarajan 21.Rajeev Nidoli 22.K.Kulothungan 23.R.Veerapandian 24.S.Sasidaran 25.P.Gnanaprakasam 26.P.Natarajan 27.K.Sivabalan 28.K.R.Shankar 29.A.John 30.Baby George 31.T.Rajan Babu 32.M.Prabhu 33.P.Suresh 34.K.V.Sasikumar 35.A.Venkatesan 36.A.Stephen 37.N.Chinnadurai 38.T.M.Aji 39.D.Sundararajan 40.George Thomas 41.V.Veerabadran 42.S.Mohan Doss 43.B.Gunakannan 44.B.Ravikumar 45.S.Sunilkumar 46.K.G.Raja 47.A.Ravikumar 48.S.Ravichandran 49.C.John 50.A.Stephen Rajan Issac 51.T.Sridhar 52.P.Leelaram 53.L.Paramaguru 54.M.Singaravadivelan ... Respondents (R13 to R54 impleaded vide order dated 20.11.2020 made in MP.No.1 of 2015 in WP.No.8213 of 2009 by this Court)

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 3^rd respondent in proceedings

¶15

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

¶16

No.Corp/P&A/NEE/2682-2008 dt. 8.1.09 quash the same in so far as giving redesignation as Store Keeper Grade-A/Senior Store Keeper Grade-II and Grade-I and Junior Material controller to the respondents 5 to 12 and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to give seniority to the Stores staff above the 41 sportsmen in the respective grades, with scale of pay and all consequential benefits, on par with the 41 sportsmen from the date on which they were given redesignation as assured and agreed by the respondents 1 to 4, award costs.

¶17

For Petitioner : No Appearance

¶18

For Respondents: Mr.M.Nithianandam (for R1 to R4)

¶19

No Appearance (for R5 to R12) Not ready (for R13 to R54)

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Since the learned counsel for the petitioner had on the earlier occasions stated that he has no instructions in the matter, notice was directed to be issued to the petitioner by the Registry. Service report of the Registry states that the notice to the address in the cause title has been returned as unserved with the endorsement 'left without instruction'.

¶22

2.In light of the aforesaid, this writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶23

s/d-

¶24

Assistant Registrar (CS-VI)

¶25

True Copy

¶26

Sub-Assistant Registra

¶27

¶28

¶29

1.The Director (Personnel),

¶30

Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., Corporate Office, Neyveli-607 801.

¶31

2.The General Manager,

¶32

(Personnel and Administraqtion), Neyveli Lignite Corporaqtion Ltd., Neyveli-1.

¶33

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

¶34

The Deputy General Manager, (Personnel and Administraqtion) Corporate Office, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., Neyveli-1. 4. The Chief Personnal Manager, (Personnel and Administration), now designated on Chief Manager, (Personnel and Administration) Corporate Office, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., Neyveli-1.

¶35

W.P. No.8213 of 2009 and

¶36

M.P.No.2 of 2009

¶37

GPL(CO) SP(09/11/2021)

¶38

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

Neyveli Lignite Corporation, v. Neyveli Lignite Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neyveli Lignite Corporation, v. Neyveli Lignite Corporation

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

D.Ganesan Vs the Principal Chief

M. Durairaj Vs the District Employment

Joseph Winnnifred Vs the Chairman

Titan Company Limited, Vs Commissioner of Central

M/s.Indian oil corporation Ltd. Vs The commissioner of central Excise and GST

Margaret Mary Vs Pradeep Yadav IAS