Disposed

K.Palanisamy v. The Superintending Engineer

Madras HC29 Nov 2023WP/9197/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by K. Palanisamy seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to permit him to join duty as a temporary casual labour with continuity of service, directing the authorities to consider his representation within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directive to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 07.02.2015 regarding joining duty as a temporary casual labour with continuity of service within four weeks.

K.Palanisamy Vs The Superintending Engineer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.9197 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 29.11.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶6

W.P.No.9197 of 2015

K.Palanisamy

..Petitioner

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

¶11

The Executive Engineer O & M, Thiuchancode, Namakkal EDCE, Thiruchancode.

¶12

Assistant Engineer O &M, Mallasamdram, Namakkal EDCE, Thiruchancode. Respondents

¶13

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a W rit of mandamus to direct the respondents to permit to join duty as a temporary casual labour with continuity of service.

¶14

For petitioner : Mr.B.Manoharan For respondents : Mr.K.Rajkumar Standing Counsel forTANGEDCO

¶15

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

1/4

W.P.No.9197 of 2015

ORDER

This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to join as a temporary casual labour with continuity of service based on his representation dated 07.02.2015.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents are present.

¶21

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner joined as a contract labour in the respondent Board in the year 1994. He has been working as a daily wager. The petitioner service was regularized and as per the settlement contract the petitioner was absorbed as TCL under the Assistant Engineer O & M Mallasamdram.

¶22

Though the services were extracted from the petitioner there

¶23

was no entry about his services in the relevant records. the petitioner was denied duty orally. The petitioner has submitted the representations to his superiors and ultimately submitted a representation dated 07.02.2015.

¶24

However, the said representation was not considered, therefore this writ

¶25

petition.

¶26

2/4

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.9197 of 2015

¶29

The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the

¶30

respondents never denied work for the petitioner, rather the petitioner himself stopped attending the duty.

¶31

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on

¶32

record.

¶33

Considering the submissions made by both the sides and the relief sought by the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 07.02.2015 as quickly as possible at a rate not later than four weeks from the date of uploading this order. No costs.

¶34

29.11.2023

¶35

vca

¶36

Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No

¶37

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

¶38

The Executive Engineer O & M, Thiuchancode, Namakkal EDCE, Thiruchancode.

¶39

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

3/4

W.P.No.9197 of 2015

Dr.D.NAGARJUN.J,

vca

Assistant Engineer O &M, Mallasamdram, Namakkal EDCE, Thiruchancode.

¶45

W.P.No.9197 of 2015

¶46

29.11.2023

¶47

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

¶48

4/4

K.Palanisamy v. The Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Palanisamy 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

Carborundum Universal Vs State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by

Mr.P.Karuppannan Vs The Director of Elementary

K.Sagaya Arulraj, Vs The Commissioner of Sugar

Tmt.S.Anbarasu Vs The Principal Secreteary

S.Manikandan Vs The Managing Director

The Managing Director Vs Presiding Officer