Disposed

G.Balakrishnan v. Murugesh I.A.S.

Madras HC12 Apr 2022CONT P/1445/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This was a contempt petition filed for non-compliance of an order dated 27.04.2021 to consider petitioner representation. The court noted eligibility barriers for regularisation but directed the District Collector to give preference to the petitioners if vacancy arises for SIPCOT staff.

What did the court decide?

The District Collector is directed to give preference to the petitioners if there is any chance for accommodating them.

G.Balakrishnan Vs Murugesh I.A.S. — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Cont.P.No1445 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 12.04.2022

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

¶6

Contempt Petition No.1445 of 2021

¶7

G.Balakrishnan, Sadayanodai Village, Kastampadi Post,

¶8

Thiruvannamalai Taluk and District.

¶9

S.Shankar Periyari Village, Thorapadi Post, Chengam Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶10

G.Murugan, Nadu Street, Veeranandal, Puthupalayam Post, Chengam Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶11

R.Anbazhagan, Mootur Village, Poondi Post, Kalasapakkam Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶12

... Petitioners

¶13

Vs.

¶14

Mr.Murugesh I.A.S., The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

¶15

Mr.V.Vetrivel, The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvannamalai Division, Thiruvannamalai.

¶16

Mrs.R.Kavitha, The Revenue Divisional Officer, Arani Division, Thiruvannamalai.

¶17

1/3

¶18

Cont.P.No1445 of 2021

¶19

Mr.Manogaran, The Tahsildar, Chengam Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶20

Mr.S.Suresh, The Tahsildar, Thiruvannamalai Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District. ... Respondents

¶21

PRAYER: The Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to permit the respondents for not complying with the orders dated 27.04.2021 passed in W.P.No.9152 of 2021 in not considering the petitioners' representing dated 14.02.2021 within the stipulated time.

¶22

For Petitioner : M/s. C.Umashankar For Respondents : M/s. Kumaresan Additional Advocate General Assisted by M/s. M. Rajendran Additional Government Pleader - - - - -

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

This Court has given a direction to the respondents to consider

¶25

the representation of the petitioner positively. However, it was noted that

¶26

the petitioners could not be regularised for want of 10 years of service as per the various Government Orders issued by the Government. They were engaged in the projects and as soon as the projects were completed, they have been discharged. Now that, the learned counsel for the petitioners would produce G.O.M.S.No.77, Industries (SIPCOT-LA) Department,

¶27

dated 05.04.2022 , wherein for the purpose of acquisition of land for SIPCOT, the District Collector is engaging Office Assistant, Field Assistant

¶28

and other personals.

¶29

2/3

¶30

Cont.P.No1445 of 2021

¶31

If there is any chance for accommodating the petitioners, the

¶32

District Collector is directed to give preference to the petitioners. Recording

¶33

the same, this Contempt Petition is closed.

¶34

SD/-

¶35

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES)

¶36

sha/asi

¶37

//Certified to be true copy//

¶38

Dated at Madras this the day of 2022.

¶39

COURT OFFICER(O.S.)

¶40

from 25^th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing Certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format. GS/21/06/2022

¶41

¶42

The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

¶43

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvannamalai Division, Thiruvannamalai.

¶44

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Arani Division, Thiruvannamalai.

¶45

The Tahsildar, Chengam Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶46

The Tahsildar,

¶47

Thiruvannamalai Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶48

3/3

G.Balakrishnan v. Murugesh I.A.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Balakrishnan v. Murugesh I.A.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Mani, Vs Tamil Nadu Housing Board

V.Mani, Vs Tamil Nadu Housing Board

V.Mani, Vs Tamil Nadu Housing Board

Mr.J.Sriram Vs the Chairman

L.Chandrakumar, Vs Union of India, Rep. by Its

Minor C.Sudhakar, Vs the Secretary to Government