Writ petition filed for grant of special time scale of pay and Grade Pay considered infructuous as the petitioner was stopped from employment with effect from 01.01.2019 per an earlier order.
No order; liberty granted to challenge the order stopping employment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :15.09.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P(MD)NO.1536 OF 2019
M.Rathinapandi :Petitioner
.vs.
Chennai – 600 002.
: Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation of the Petitioner, dated 20.12.2018 regarding granting special time scale of pay of Rs.1300-3000+Grade Pay of Rs.300/- with effect from 15.09.2010 as per G.O.Ms.No.385,
1/5
Finance(Pay Cell Department, dated 01.10.2010) within the time stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner :Mr.C.Meenakshi Rama Prabhu
For Respondents :Mr.J.K.Jeyaseelan 1 to 4 Govt. Advocate
**O R D E R ***********
This Writ Petition is filed to consider the representation of the Petitioner, dated 20.12.2018 regarding grant of special time scale of pay of Rs.1300-3000+Grade Pay of Rs.300/- with effect from 15.09.2010.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available placed before this Court.
3.When the matter came up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 produced an order, dated 07.03.2019, wherein, the claim of the Petitioner has been considered in detail and as a matter of fact, it not only relates to the grant of special time scale of pay but also regarding the very employment itself, which has been refused and it is stated in the said order that the Petitioner has been stopped
2/5
from employment w.e.f. 01.01.2019 itself. The order also mentions the manner in which the Petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition, as factually incorrect. In any event, once an order is passed, the prayer to consider the representation has since now become infructuous.
15.09.2023
Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No NCC:Yes/No
vsn
To
3/5
4/5
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J.
vsn
0RDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.1536 of 2019
15.09.2023
5/5
M. Rathinapandi
The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu
The Director of Public Libraries
The District Library Officer
The Village Library Officer
D. Bharatha Chakravarthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
