Dismissed

K.Sundarrajan, v. The Superintending Engineer

Madras HC3 Nov 2023WP/19589/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent Board to re-fix seniority and pay arrears. The court observed that the seniority re-fixation had been done but salary and arrears remained unaddressed. The petition was disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the representation and decide on salary and arrears within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 04.02.2015, fix salary from 22.08.2012, and decide on arrears within four weeks.

K.Sundarrajan, Vs The Superintending Engineer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.19589 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 01.11.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶6

W.P.No.19589 of 2015

¶7

K.Sundarrajan …Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The Superintending Engineer, Namakkal, Electricity Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO, Namakkal …Respondents

¶10

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus, to direct the respondent Board to re-fix petitioner’s seniority.

¶11

For petitioner : Mr.B.Manoharan

¶12

For respondent : Mr.K.Purushothaman Standing Counsel for TANGEDCO

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to consider the

¶15

representation of the petitioner dated 04.02.2015.

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2. The facts in brief as per the affidavit is as follows:

¶17

1/4

¶18

W.P.No.19589 of 2015

¶19

2.1. The petitioner who has been working as an Assistant Engineer has

¶20

filed a representation dated 04.02.2015 to re-fix the seniority in the cadre of Line Inspector/Commercial Assistant (L1/C1) dated 30.06.2012 and accordingly the seniority list was fixed and he was placed in sl.No.29 in the list.

¶21

2.2. It is also mentioned that the petitioner’s junior were placed above

¶22

him in the post of Foreman and he has also filed a representation dated 04.02.2015 before the concerned authorities.

¶23

The learned counsel for the respondents are present and submitted that the request of the petitioner was considered and the seniority has been refixed. With regard to the issue raised by the writ petitioner has been resolved and the cause does not survive for the petitioner to prosecute any more. The petitioner has filed a copy of the representation given by him dated 04.02.2015.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in this writ petition the petitioner has sought for arrears to be paid apart from re-fixing his seniority. Though a part of his request, i.e., re-fixing the seniority has already https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

2/4

¶26

W.P.No.19589 of 2015

¶27

been done his salary has not been fixed and arrears have not been paid.

¶28

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that if certain time is

¶29

given, the Board will pass appropriate orders in this regard.

¶30

In view of the above submissions this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 04.02.2015. As requested his date of appointment on 22.08.2012 as Foreman and also consider the payment of salary from the said date onwards and also sought for payment of arrears to be decided as quickly as possible not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of a order. Connected writ miscellaneous petition is closed, if any. Costs made easy.

¶31

03.11.2023

¶32

Vca Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No

¶33

¶34

The Superintending Engineer, Namakkal, Electricity Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO, Namakkal

¶35

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

3/4

W.P.No.19589 of 2015

Dr.D.NAGARJUN.,J

vca

W.P.No.19589 of 2015

03.11.2023

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

¶43

4/4

K.Sundarrajan, v. The Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sundarrajan, v. The Superintending Engineer

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

Puthiya Jananayaga Thozhilalar Vs Government of Tamil Nadu

S.Ravi Vs the Secretary to the Govt.

S.a.Muthiah Vs the Secretary to Government

M.Balasubramanian, Vs the Principal Secretary /

The Managing Director Vs a.Palaniappan

C.Arulmojy, Vs the Chairman