Dismissed

S.Ravi v. the Secretary to the Govt.

Madras HC2 Nov 2023WP/20437/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a writ petition filed by S. Ravi challenging proceedings that rejected his representation for appointment as an Office Assistant. The court noted the petitioner's absence and his active litigation in other forums led by the same counsel, concluding he has no interest in prosecuting this case.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; no relief granted.

S.Ravi Vs the Secretary to the Govt. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.20437 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02.11.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶6

W.P.No.20437 of 2013

S.Ravi

…Petitioner

Secretary to the Government, (Local Administration) Fort St.George Chennai 600 009.

¶11

The Director of Rural Development Panagal Buildings, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.

¶12

The District Collector, Collectorate, Tiruvarur.

¶13

The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Kottur, Tiruvarur District. …Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the fourth respondent in his proceedings No.1283/01/A5 dated 17/06/2010 and after quashing the same direct all the respondents to consider the representation dated 04.02.2001 as per the order dated 24.06.2002 passed by the Tamil

¶15

Page No.1 of 7

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.20437 of 2013

¶18

Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.3423 of 2002 for appointment as Office Assistant in the Kottur Panchayat Union.

¶19

For petitioner : No appearance For R1 and R2 : Ms.C.Sangamithirai Special Government Pleader For R4 : Mr.P.Chinna Durai

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This writ petition is filed seeking for questioning the proceedings No.1283/01/A5 dated 17/06/2010 and to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 04.02.2001.

¶22

According to the affidavit the facts in brief is as follows:

¶23

2.1. The petitioner was appointed as Cholera Mazdoor in Kottur

¶24

Panchayat Union in the year 1998 only on a temporary basis. When his service was terminated he filed O.A.No.6338 of 1998 along with two others and direction was given not to disturb the petitioners therein including the petitioner herein.

¶25

Page No.2 of 7

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.20437 of 2013

¶28

2.2. He subsequently filed another O.A.No.3423 of 2002 which was disposed of directing the respondents therein to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 04.07.2001. The Government has recommended appointment of employees on compassionate grounds and also regularization of the services of the people who were working for more than ten years.

¶29

2.3. The petitioner had filed a writ petition and order dated 14.09.2010 in W.P.No. 20198 of 2002 was disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 04.02.2001. The fourth respondent has issued proceedings dated 17.06.2010 rejecting the representation of the petitioner without referring to the order dated 14.09.2010 in W.P.No.20198 of 2009 and referring the orders dated 05.01.2009 in W.P.Nos.29166 and 29167 of 2004.

¶30

Learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and learned counsel for

¶31

respondent four are present. No representation on behalf of the petitioner.

¶32

Page No.3 of 7

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.No.20437 of 2013

¶35

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent

¶36

submitted that the petitioner was originally appointed as Cholera Mazdoor by the fourth respondent on temporary basis on 15.02.1988 and since it was temporary appointment, there was no necessity for the continuance of such post as per the policy of the Government, his services were terminated with effect from 31.01.1998.

¶37

The petitioner has given a representation to the fourth respondent questioning his termination and when it was not disposed of, the writ petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.20198 of 2009 wherein this Court has directed the respondents to dispose of the representation of the writ petitioner dated 04.02.2001, as per the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.3423 of 2002 and it was disposed of on 17.06.2010. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶38

The learned counsel for the fourth respondent also submitted that

¶39

the matter has already been decided in W.P.No.33441 of 2007 dated

¶40

Page No.4 of 7

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.No.20437 of 2013

¶43

06.06.2011 reported in 2011 SCC online Madras 2793.

¶44

Today, this matter is listed under the caption “for dismissal” even

¶45

then the learned counsel representing the petitioner has failed to appear before this Court. Considering the circumstances it shows that the petitioner has no interest to prosecute this case.

¶46

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Costs made easy.

¶47

02.11.2023

¶48

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

¶49

¶50

Secretary to the Government, (Local Administration) Fort St.George Chennai 600 009.

¶51

Page No.5 of 7

¶52

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

W.P.No.20437 of 2013

Dr.D.NAGARJUN.,J

vca

The Director of Rural Development Panagal Buildings, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.

¶57

The District Collector, Collectorate, Tiruvarur.

¶58

The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Kottur, Tiruvarur District

¶59

W.P.No.20437 of 2013

¶60

Page No.6 of 7

¶61

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

W.P.No.20437 of 2013

02.11.2023

Page No.7 of 7

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

S.Ravi v. the Secretary to the Govt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Ravi v. the Secretary to the Govt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Padmanadhan, Vs Tamilnadu State Transport

M.Selvam, Driver (EDP.No.7037) Vs The Managing Director

G.Punitha, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Puthiya Jananayaga Thozhilalar Vs Government of Tamil Nadu

S.a.Muthiah Vs the Secretary to Government

T.Muthu Ganesh Vs the Principal Secretary and