Dismissed

M.Panneerselvam (Rtd.HC.596) v. The Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC9 Jul 2024WP/2429/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging disciplinary punishments and seeking salary arrears and seniority revision was listed for dismissal after repeated non-appearance by the petitioner. With no representation again on the hearing date, the High Court dismissed the petition for default and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions, with no costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

M.Panneerselvam (Rtd.HC.596) Vs The Government of… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.2429 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 09.07.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

W.P.No.2429 of 2016 and

¶7

W.M.P.Nos.2109 and 2110 of 2016

M.Panneerselvam

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary to Home Department, Fort St.George,

¶12

Chennai – 600 009.

¶13

2.The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore,

¶14

Chennai – 600 004.

¶15

3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kancheepuram Range

¶16

4.The Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶19

Page 1 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

W.P.No.2429 of 2016

¶21

of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order in PR.No.52/2003 dated 29.03.2005 passed by the 4^th respondent which was modified by the 3^rd respondent in C.No.B2/AP,34/2005 dated 26.09.2005, which was confirmed by the 2^nd respondent in R.C.No.91672/APII21/2007 dated 31.08.2007 again which was confirmed by the 1^st respondent in G.O.(2D) No.632 dated 18.10.2013 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to provide the arrears of salary to the punishment period and revise the service seniority to the petitioner.

¶22

: For petitioner No appearance For respondents : Mr.P.Ganesan, Government Advocate

¶23

*****

¶24

O RDER

¶25

Since there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner on

¶26

earlier two occasions, the matter was directed to be listed under the caption 'for dismissal".

¶27

Once again, though the matter is listed today under the

¶28

Page 2 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

W.P.No.2429 of 2016

¶30

caption 'for dismissal', there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner either in person or through counsel. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed for default. Consequently, connected W.M.Ps. stand closed. No costs.

¶31

09.07.2024

¶32

Internet : Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order ssa

¶33

¶34

1.The Secretary to Home Department, The Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶35

2.The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.

¶36

3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kancheepuram Range

¶37

4.The Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

¶38

Page 3 of 4

¶39

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

W.P.No.2429 of 2016

P.T.ASHA, J.,

ssa

W.P.No.2429 of 2016

¶44

09.07.2024

¶45

Page 4 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M.Panneerselvam (Rtd.HC.596) v. The Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M.Panneerselvam (Rtd.HC.596) v. The Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Dhanalakshmi Vs Principal Secretary to the

P.Aruchamy, Vs The Deputy Registrar of Coop.

M.Manivannan Vs The Chairman

G.S.Kumar Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

K. Marimuthu, Vs State Express Transport

R.Krishnan, B.Sc., B.L., Vs The Principal Secretary to