Writ petition by a police officer challenging orders preventing his retirement from service; counsel submitted the matter had become infructuous following an earlier order in a related writ petition and made an endorsement to that effect.
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.
W.P.No.25010 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.P.No.25010 of 2013 and M.P.No.2 of 2013
T.Durairaj
Petitioner
versus
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order in D.O.336/2013 RC No.K4/37784/2011 dt.18.03.2013 issued by the third respondent in so far as it did not permit the petitioner to retire from service, along with the order in P.R./2/2013 dt.21.05.2013 of the
1/4
W.P.No.25010 of 2013
fourth respondent read with the Order C.No.K1/P.R.12/2013 dt.12.07.2013 issued by the fourth respondent and quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently issue a direction to the respondents to grant the petitioner continuity of service, seniority and promotions on par with juniors, back wages and all other attendant benefits due to the petitioner and the monetary benefits thereon on the basis of his superannuation on 30.04.007, within a time frame, award costs.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Elumalai for M/s.C.K.Chandrasekar
For Respondents : Mr.P.Ananda Kumar Government Advocate
O R D E R
Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr.K.Elumalai,
learned counsel representing M/s.C.K.Chandrasekar for the petitioner submitted that, in view of the orders passed by the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.15117 of 2015 dated 03.02.2020 filed by the petitioner challenging the punishment, the relief sought for in the present writ petition has become infructuous and he has also made an endorsement to that effect.
2 . Recording the submission and endorsement made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous .
2/4
W.P.No.25010 of 2013
3 . There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
05.11.2024
Speaking order / Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No
sri
To
Chennai - 600 009.
3/4
W.P.No.25010 of 2013
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
sri
W.P.No.25010 of 2013 and M.P.No.2 of 2013
05.11.2024
4/4
1 provisions across 1 enactments
T.Durairaj
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Home Department
The Director General of Police
The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur
The Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam
G.Arul Murugan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
