Disposed

A.Thangavel, v. The Chairman

Madras HC12 Apr 2022WP/15770/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court observed that non-consideration of statutory representations amounts to dereliction of duty. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the third respondent, directing them to pass appropriate orders within three months, without expressing a view on the merits of the claim.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to submit fresh representation; third respondent directed to consider it and pass orders within 3 months.

A.Thangavel, Vs The Chairman — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 12.04.2022

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

W.P.No.15770 of 2015

A.Thangavel

...Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The Chairman, TANGEDCO, (formerly TNEB)

¶10

Anna Salai, Chennai - 2.

¶11

2.The Chief Engineer Personnel, TANGEDCO,

¶12

Anna Salai, Chennai - 2.

¶13

3.The Superintending Engineer, Erode Electricity Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO Erode. ...Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent Board to treat that the petitioner joined in the service of the Board from the date of identification as contract labour i.e. on 08.08.1998 for the purpose of terminal benefits and granting pension.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Manoharan

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.Anand Gopalan, for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner herein had given representations on 28.01.2015 and 10.05.2015, seeking for consideration of the date of regularization from the date of his identification as Contract Labour, i.e. from 08.08.1998 for the purpose of pension and terminal benefits. Since the said representations were not

¶19

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

¶20

considered, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶21

It is needless to point out that whenever representations of this nature are made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon the respondents to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. As such, nonconsideration of the representation by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty and hence, this Court will be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India and direct them to consider the same within a stipulated time.

¶22

Since the representations given by the petitioner dates back to the year 2015, it would be appropriate that the petitioner be granted liberty to give a fresh representation, with a consequential direction to the third respondent to consider the same, thereby securing the ends of justice.

¶23

In the light of the above observations, the petitioner is granted liberty to give a fresh representation to the third respondent herein, along with copies of the earlier representations dated 28.01.2015 and 10.05.2015, ventilating his grievances. On receipt of such a representation, the third respondent shall consider it and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the representation. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any of its views with regard to the merits of the claim made by the petitioner and it is open to the concerned respondent to consider it on its own merits.

¶24

With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶27

// True Copy //

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

hvk

¶30

¶31

1.The Chairman, TANGEDCO, (formerly TNEB) Anna Salai, Chennai - 2.

¶32

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

¶33

2.The Chief Engineer Personnel, TANGEDCO, Anna Salai, Chennai - 2. 3.The Superintending Engineer, Erode Electricity Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO Erode.

¶34

+1cc to M/s.T.S.Gopalan & CO, Advocate SR.No.25426 +1cc to Mr.B.Manoharan, Advocate SR.No.25598

¶35

W.P.No.15770 of 2015 PMK(CO) CB(02/05/2022)

¶36

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

A.Thangavel, v. The Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Thangavel, v. The Chairman

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

The Management, Vs the Presiding Officer

Sridharan, S/O.Bojan, Vs Tamil Nadu State Transport

Mrs.Poongothai Subramaniam Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

C.Kamalakannan, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Sakunthala Govindan, Vs the Regional Provident Fund

M.Patrick Vs the Presiding Officer