Disposed

O.K.Prakash Bapu, v. Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited

Madras HC6 Dec 2022WA(MD)/398/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the writ appeal challenging a transfer order. The court held it cannot interfere with administrative transfers but granted liberty to the appellant to seek transfer after the sixth respondent's retirement.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal dismissed. Liberty granted to approach authorities for transfer after sixth respondent's retirement.

O.K.Prakash Bapu, Vs Tamil Nadu Generation and… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.A(MD) No.398 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 06.12.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶7

W.A.(MD) No.398 of 2022 and C.M.P(MD) No.4019 of 2022

O.K.Prakash Bapu

... Appellant

-vs-

1.Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO), Represented by the Chairman cum Managing Director, 10^th Floor, NPKRR Maaligai, 144, Anna Salai,

¶12

Chennai – 2.

¶13

2.Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO), Represented by its Secretary, 10^th Floor, NPKRR Maaligai, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.

¶14

3.The Chief Engineer / Distribution / Madurai Region, Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO), Madurai Regional Office, K.Pudur, Madurai – 7.

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

_____________ Page 1 of 6_

¶17

W.A(MD) No.398 of 2022

¶18

4.The Superintending Engineer, Madurai Electricity Distribution

¶19

Circle / Metro, Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO), Madurai District.

¶20

5.The Superintending Engineer, Non-Conventional Energy Sources, Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO), Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

¶21

6.Mr.R.Palani

¶22

... Respondents

¶23

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Section I5 of Letters Patent against the order dated 18.04.2022 made in W.P.(MD)No.1762 of 2022.

¶24

For Appellant : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For Respondents : Ms.M.Parameshwari, Standing Counsel for R1 to R5 Mr.M.Ajmalkhan, Senior Counsel for M/s.Ajmal Associates

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.)

¶27

Challenging the order passed by this Court, dated 18.04.2022, made in W.P.(MD)No.1762 of 2022, the appellant has come forward with this writ appeal.

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

_____________ Page 2 of 6_

¶30

W.A(MD) No.398 of 2022

¶31

2. The appellant / writ petitioner has filed a writ petition, challenging the transfer order dated 21.01.2022, issued by the second respondent, alleging that only for the purpose of accommodating the sixth respondent, the transfer order was passed. After hearing the parties, the Writ Court, by order dated 18.04.2022, dismissed the writ petition, by rejecting the contention of the appellant / writ petitioner. As against the said order, the appellant / writ petitioner has filed this Writ Appeal.

¶32

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that on the basis of the request of the sixth respondent, the transfer order has been passed and normally, the request for transfer can be made only in available vacancies. The learned Single Judge, has failed to consider the said fact and on that ground, the order of the learned single Judge is liable to be interfered with.

¶33

4. The learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent submitted that the sixth respondent – Palani is due to retire from service

¶34

in the month of May, 2023 and after the retirement of the sixth respondent, the appellant may approach the authority and seek for

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 3 of 6_

¶36

W.A(MD) No.398 of 2022

¶37

agreed.

¶38

transfer to Madurai, for which, the learned counsel for the appellant is agreed.

¶39

5 . We are of the view that normally, this Court cannot interfere

¶40

with the order of transfer passed by the respondents on the administrative grounds. However, this will not stand in the way of the appellant to approach the authorities and seek for transfer from Palani to Madurai, after the retirement of the sixth respondent.

¶41

6. With the above liberty, this Writ Appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶42

[D.K.K., J.] [R.V., J.]

¶43

06.12.2022

¶44

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No vsm

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 4 of 6_

¶46

W.A(MD) No.398 of 2022

¶47

¶48

1.Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO), Represented by the Chairman cum Managing Director, 10^th Floor, NPKRR Maaligai, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.

¶49

2.Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO), Represented by its Secretary, 10^th Floor, NPKRR Maaligai, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.

¶50

3.The Chief Engineer / Distribution / Madurai Region, Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO), Madurai Regional Office, K.Pudur, Madurai – 7.

¶51

4.The Superintending Engineer, Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle / Metro, Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO), Madurai District.

¶52

5.The Superintending Engineer, Non-Conventional Energy Sources, Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO), Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 5 of 6_

¶54

W.A(MD) No.398 of 2022

¶55

D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J. and R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

¶56

vsm

¶57

W.A.(MD) No.398 of 2022

¶58

06.12.2022

¶59

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 6 of 6_

O.K.Prakash Bapu, v. Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

O.K.Prakash Bapu, v. Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.P.Karuppasamy Vs the District Collector

Murugalakshmi, W/O. Rajan, Vs the District Collector

P.Balamurugan Vs the Secretary to Government

Sundaravadivel Servi Vs the Superintendent of Police

B. Nagasubramanian, Vs The Commissioner

M.v.Raja Vs the Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative