Disposed

P.Amirthalingam v. Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC19 Jun 2024WP/4179/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a Government employee seeking regularization of services as a Computer Assistant from the date of his initial appointment. The court dismissed the prayer for immediate regularization but directed the authority to consider the petitioner's pending representation and pass orders within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Secretary to Government to consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.11.2013 and pass orders within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

P.Amirthalingam Vs Government of Tamilnadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.4179 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 19.06.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

W.P.No.4179 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015 and W.M.P.No.3186 of 2016

P.Amirthalingam

.. Petitioner

Vs.

Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶11

The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai 600 006.

¶12

The Deputy Director of Health Services, Dharmapuri, Member Secretary, District Health Society, Dharmapuri .. Respondents

¶13

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to regularise the services of the Petitioner as Computer

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.No.4179 of 2015

¶16

Assistant from the date of his initial appointment from 18.04.2008 as such and to regularly absorb in the said post or in any suitable post in the Department, Commensurate with his educational qualification and to grant him all consequential benefits.

¶17

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ravi

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.E.Sundaram Government Advocate.

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner seeks to have his services as a Computer

¶22

Assistant regularized from the date of his initial appointment on 18.04.2008 and to absorb him in the said post or in any equivalent

¶23

post commensurate with his educational qualification and to grant him the consequential benefits.

¶24

The petitioner has made a representation to the first

¶25

respondent on 06.11.2013 on the basis of which the second respondent

¶26

has sought for certain particulars from the third respondent vide letter 24.06.2014. However, the representation of the petitioner has not

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.4179 of 2015

¶29

been disposed of to date and the petitioner has been kept in the dark.

¶30

Considering the fact that though the prayer sought is for a much larger relief, since a representation has been made by the petitioner, based on which details have also been sought by the second respondent, it would suffice to dispose of the writ petition with the direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 06.11.2013 within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶31

19.06.2024

¶32

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes srn To

¶33

The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Health and Family Welfare Department,

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.No.4179 of 2015

¶36

Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶37

The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine,

¶38

Chennai 600 006.

¶39

The Deputy Director of Health Services, Dharmapuri, Member Secretary, District Health Society, Dharmapuri

¶40

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

W.P.No.4179 of 2015

P.T.ASHA, J.

srn

W.P.No.4179 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015 and W.M.P.No.3186 of 2016

¶45

19.06.2024

¶46

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

P.Amirthalingam v. Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Amirthalingam v. Government of Tamilnadu

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

C.Nandagopal Vs The Chairman

S.Nataraji, Vs The Branch Manager

Selvi S.Radhika Vs The Secretary to Government

R.Poongothai, Vs The Principal Secretary

S.Gnanasekar, Vs the Secretary to Government

Dr.Jayakrishnan.G. Vs The Health and Family Welfare