Dismissed

B. Mari v. the General Manager

Madras HC3 Oct 2023WA(MD)/1687/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This warrant appeal challenged a transfer order moving the petitioner from Tenkasi to Thiruchendur. The bench held that transfer is incidental to service conditions, issued on administrative grounds, and that the petitioner faces pending departmental disciplinary proceedings. The court found the jurisdictional challenge untenable and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

B. Mari Vs the General Manager — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 03.10.2023

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶5

W.A.(MD)No.1687 of 2023 and C.M.P.(MD)No.12917 of 2023

B.Mari

...Appellant

-Vs.-

1.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Limited, Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli.

¶10

2.The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Limited, Tirunelveli Region, Tenkasi Region, Tenkasi.

¶11

3.The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Limited, Thoothukudi Region, Thiruchendur Region, Thoothukudi.

¶12

...Respondents

¶13

1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

PRAYER:- Writ Appeal - filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, to

¶15

PRAYER:- Writ Appeal - filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, to set aside the order dated 05.04.2023 made in W.P(MD)No.5144 of 2023 and allow the said Writ Appeal by quashing the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent in A.A.No.10360/Nia5/ThaAPoKa./Thill/2022 dated 22.02.2023.

¶16

For Appellant : Mr.K.Guhan For R1 : Mr.D.Jebaraj ****

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)

¶19

The order of transfer of issued by the General Manager transferring the Writ Petitioner from Tenkasi to Thiruchendur was sought to be quashed in the Writ Petition.

¶20

2.The appellant has raised a ground that the General Manager

¶21

has no competency to issue the order impugned, since the order of transfer was issued from one region to another region. However, the learned Judge found that the transfer order had been approved by the Managing Director of the Transport Corporation and therefore, the ground of jurisdiction raised by the appellant is untenable.

¶22

2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

3.Transfer is incidental to service, more so, condition of

¶24

service. The present transfer order was issued on administrative grounds and further, the appellant is facing departmental disciplinary proceedings on account of certain allegations. This being the factum, we are not inclined to entertain the Writ Appeal. Consequently, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶25

[S.M.S.J.,] & [V.L.N.J.,] NCC :Yes/No 03.10.2023 Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No cmr

¶26

3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

¶28

cmr

¶29

W.A.(MD)No.1687 of 2023

¶30

03.10.2023

¶31

4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

B. Mari v. the General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Mari v. the General Manager

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

Sathya Mahendran Vs The Prl. Secretary to Govt.

Balakrishnan.K Vs The Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee-Ii

The Director of Elementary Education Vs S. Kulanthai Theres