Disposed

S.Kandasamy, (Deceased) v. the Chairman

Madras HC12 Sept 2024WP/29057/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court observed that the impugned order did not address an alleged appointment of the deceased first petitioner. It directed the respondents to dispose of a fresh representation by the petitioner handling within four weeks after receipt.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to dispose of a fresh representation within two weeks and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

S.Kandasamy, (Deceased) Vs the Chairman — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.29057 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 12.09.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

W.P.No.29057 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010

¶7

1.S.Kandasamy (deceased)

¶8

2.K.Janaki

¶9

3.K.Ananthakumar

¶10

4.K.Ashok Kumar

¶11

5.A.Anitha

¶12

Petitioners

¶13

[P-2 to P-5 - substituted as LRs of the deceased P1 as per order dated 23.01.2014 in W.M.P.No.36276 of 2023 in W.P.No.29057 of 2010]

¶14

versus

¶15

1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Limited, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

¶16

2.The Chief Engineer, Personnel, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Limited, No.144, Anna Salai,

¶17

Chennai - 600 002.

¶18

3.The Superintending Engineer, Salem Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Salem.

¶19

1/5

¶20

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

¶21

W.P.No.29057 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010

¶22

4.The Executive Engineer, Operation & Maintenance, TANGEDCO., Salem / South, Salem - 2. ...

¶23

Respondents

¶24

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the third respondent made in letter No.024863/NiPi2/Vu 4/Ka Thani / 10 dated 29.11.2010 and quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 to permit the petitioner to join duty as per the reposting order issued by the fourth respondent made in Say / Po / E.Pa / Thae / Say/Udavi 1/Ka.O.Tho/No.1398/07 dated 08.09.2007 by granting all monetary and service benefits from the date of his appointment i.e. 08.09.2007.

¶25

For Petitioners : Mr.G.Ananda Kumar For Respondents : Mr.Anand Gopalan for Mr.T.S.Gopalan

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

The first petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of

¶28

the third respondent dated 29.11.2010 and a direction to the respondents 2 to 4 to permit the first petitioner to join duty as per the appointment order dated 08.09.2007 and grant all monetary and service benefits. During the pendency of the proceedings, the first petitioner died and his legal heirs have been impleaded as petitioners 2 to 5.

¶29

2/5

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.No.29057 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010

¶32

2 . Heard Mr.G.Ananda Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner

¶33

and Mr.Anand Gopalan, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

¶34

3 . Mr.G.Ananda Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the deceased first petitioner is very much entitled to be absorbed as a regular employee in pursuant to the board proceedings. In fact, the deceased first petitioner claims that he has been given an order of appointment on 08.09.2007 in accordance with the board proceedings, but subsequently he was not allowed to work. Hence, the deceased first petitioner had given another representation, but the same was rejected, stating that he was not in continuous employment from 18.10.2006 to 05.09.2007.

¶35

4 . In fact, if the deceased first petitioner's appointment order dated 08.09.2007 is true, then the impugned order, which is in direct contradiction to its earlier order of appointment, will not stand. However, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order dated 08.09.2007 is not true and hence, it cannot be acted upon. The claim of the petitioners is that the deceased first petitioner was very much covered under the board

¶36

3/5

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.No.29057 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010

¶39

proceedings, which permitted the absorption of contractual labourer who

¶40

was rendering service between the period from 18.10.2006 to 05.09.2007.

¶41

5 . Since the impugned order does not discuss anything about the alleged appointment order dated 08.09.2007, I feel the deceased first petitioner's legal heirs can give a fresh representation by attaching a copy of the order for consideration of the second respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such representation being made by the petitioner, the second respondent shall dispose the same and pass appropriate orders on merits, within a period of four weeks thereafter. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶42

12.09.2024 Speaking order / Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No

¶43

sri

¶44

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

¶45

4/5

¶46

W.P.No.29057 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010

¶47

R.N.MANJULA, J.

¶48

sri

¶49

W.P.No.29057 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010

¶50

12.09.2024

¶51

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

¶52

5/5

S.Kandasamy, (Deceased) v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Kandasamy, (Deceased) v. the Chairman

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

The Management of Vs the Presiding Officer

Palaniappan Vs The Authorized Officer

The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co- Operative Bank Employees Union Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

Deepa Vs Dr.N.Subbaiyan, I.A.S.

S.Praveenkumar Vs Dr.N.Subbaiyan, I.A.S.

The Management Vs R.Mandhiri