Disposed

R.Bharathidasan v. the District Collector

Madras HC19 Dec 2024WP/38212/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation for reinstatement as a writer by first conducting an enquiry and affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing, directing a response within eight weeks. The court declined to express an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Assistant Director, Town Panchayats to consider the representation to reinstate the petitioner after conducting an enquiry after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing within e

R.Bharathidasan Vs the District Collector — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.38212 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 19.12.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶6

W.P.No.38212 of 2024

R. Bharathidasan

...Petitioner

The District Collector, Cuddalore District, QQF4 + 9M6, Gundu Salai Road, Alpet, Manjakuppam, Tamil Nadu 607 001.

¶11

The Block Development Officer, Village Panchayats, Annagrammam Union, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore.

¶12

The Assistant Director,

¶13

Town Panchayats,

¶14

Old District Board Building Complex, Beach Road, Cuddalore 607 001.

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 20.08.2024 addressed to the District Collector, Cuddalore ( first respondent) and Block Development Officer ( Panchayat Secretary) ( 2^nd Respondent) and thereby re-instate the

¶17

1/5

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.No.38212 of 2024

¶20

petitioner in the post of writer at Malayaperumal Agaram Panchayat, Cuddalore District and pass orders.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Suresh For Respondents1 and 3 : Mr. Abishek Murthy, Government Advocate For Respondent-2 : Mr.S.Mythreye Chandru Special Government Pleader

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 20.08.2024 addressed to the District Collector, Cuddalore ( first respondent) and Block Development Officer ( Panchayat Secretary) ( 2^nd Respondent) and thereby re-instate the petitioner in the post of writer at Malayaperumal Agaram Panchayat, Cuddalore District and pass orders.

¶24

The facts of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as a writer in the Malayaperumal Agaram Panchayat and he has resigned his job due to the harassment made by the President. Due to which the petitioner made a complaint to the District collector, who inturn had instructed the concerned Panchayat to look into the matter. Subsequently

¶25

2/5

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.38212 of 2024

¶28

the petitioner made several representations to the concerned authorities to re-instate him in the services. Finally the petitioner made a representation to the second respondent on 20.08.2024 regarding the said issue. However, there was no progress in the representation till date, hence this petition.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner relied on the letter bearing Na.Ka.No.17408/06 dated 12.02.2007, wherein it was stated that if any person should be removed proper enquiry should be conducted. He would further submit that it would be suffice if this Court issues a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders.

¶30

4.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the third respondent would submit that the representation of the petitioner will be considered on merits and in accordance with law.

¶31

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶32

3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.P.No.38212 of 2024

¶34

Considering the facts of the case, this Court without expressing

¶35

any opinion on the merits of the case directs the third respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner after conducting an enquiry by affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶36

With the above observations this writ petition stands

¶37

disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶38

19.12.2024

¶39

Index:Yes/No

¶40

Speaking order/Non-speaking order smn To.

¶41

The District Collector, Cuddalore District,QQF4 + 9M6, Gundu Salai Road, Alpet, Manjakuppam, Tamil Nadu 607 001.

¶42

The Block Development Officer,Village Panchayats, Annagrammam Union, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore.

¶43

The Assistant Director, Town Panchayats, Old District Board Building Complex, Beach Road, Cuddalore 607 001.

¶44

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

¶45

4/5

¶46

W.P.No.38212 of 2024

¶47

V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.

¶48

smn

¶49

W.P.No.38212 of 2024

¶50

19.12.2024

¶51

5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

R.Bharathidasan v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Bharathidasan v. the District Collector

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

R.Deepa Vs The District Collector

Aravinth Vs the Director General of Police

E.Chittaranjan Vs the State of Tamilnadu

A.Lazar Rathan Raj- 3857 Vs the Managing Director

S.Ravichandran Vs the Secretary to Government

S.D.Meganathan Vs the Managing Director