Allowed

Mr.G.Rangarasu v. the Managing Director

Madras HC21 Dec 2024WP/22472/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order cancelling a career progression benefit granted to the petitioner. Finding the order passed without an opportunity of hearing violated natural justice principles, the court remanded the matter to the respondent to take appropriate action complying with those principles.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 20.09.2011 in F.No.202/PRTC/Admn/93/828 is quashed and matter remanded to respondent to comply with principles of natural justice.

Mr.G.Rangarasu Vs the Managing Director — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.22472 of 2011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 21.12.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.22472 of 2011 and

¶7

M.P.No.1 of 2011

¶8

Mr.G.Rangarasu ... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Managing Director, Puducherry Road Transport Corporation Limited, Puducherry.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records leading to the issue of the impugned order dated 20.09.2011 passed by the respondent herein in F.No.202/PRTC/Admn/93/828 and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.L.Mouli

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.R.Sreedhar

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

Heard Mr.L.Mouli, learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶17

Mr.R.Sreedhar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation.

¶18

Page 1 of 5

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.No.22472 of 2011

¶21

This writ petition has been filed aggrieved by an order 20.09.2011, whereby Modified Assured Career Progression benefit extended in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by a single line order.

¶22

A perusal of the impugned order discloses that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner before issuing the impugned order and the benefit that was granted in favour of the petitioner on 06.12.2010 was withdrawn, prejudicially affecting the petitioner and also affecting the petitioner financially. In view of the same, the impugned order cannot be sustained for want of compliance of the principles of natural justice.

¶23

Further, this court while entertaining the writ petition, granted interim stay of the operation of the impugned order and subsequently, the said order was made absolute in M.P.No.2 of 2011 by an order dated 22.12.2011 and the said order is still in operation. Thus, the operation of the impugned order is stayed for the past about 13 years.

¶24

As already noted above, the impugned order is issued in gross

¶25

Page 2 of 5

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.22472 of 2011

¶28

violation of the principles of natural justice and hence, the same cannot be sustained under law.

¶29

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.09.2011 passed by the respondent herein in F.No.202/PRTC/Admn/93/828 is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the respondent to take appropriate action in accordance with law by duly complying with the principles of natural justice.

¶30

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶31

21.12.2024

¶32

skr Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes / No

¶33

¶34

The Managing Director, Puducherry Road Transport Corporation Limited, Puducherry.

¶35

Page 3 of 5

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.No.22472 of 2011

¶38

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.

¶39

skr

¶40

W.P.No.22472 of 2011

¶41

Page 4 of 5

¶42

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

W.P.No.22472 of 2011

21.12.2024

Page 5 of 5

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

Mr.G.Rangarasu v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.G.Rangarasu v. the Managing Director

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

The Executive Engineer, Vs T.Manivannan

S.N.Elumalai, Vs the Joint Registrar of

N.Kanniappan Vs the State of Tamilnadu

N.Jayavelu, EX.P.C.7704 Vs Commissioner of Police

S.Vinumahesh Vs The Tamil Nad Civil Supplies

S.Meena, Vs The Director of Elementary