Dismissed

Soundharya S v. The Director (Me)

Madras HC8 Jan 2024WP/5584/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition under Article 226 sought to quash an office order directing bond submission by a medical practitioner. At the hearing, the respondent established that the petitioner had already deposited the bond amount, rendering the challenge infructuous. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

Soundharya S Vs The Director (Me) — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No. 5584 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 08.01.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶6

W.P.No. 5584 of 2017 and W.M.P.No. 5948 of 2017

S. Soundharya

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Director (ME), Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Panchdeep Bhavan, C.I.G. Road, New Delhi – 110 002.

¶11

2.E.S.I. Corporation, 143, Sterling Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 34.

¶12

3.The Dean, ESI Medical College and PG-IMSR, K.K.Nagar, Chennai – 600 078. ... Respondents

¶13

Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records in Office Order No.25 of 2016 dated 26.07.2016 passed by the first respondent and quash the same as illegal and not binding on the petitioner.

¶14

For Petitioner : No Appearance For Respondents : Mr. T.N.C. Kaushik, Standing Counsel

¶15

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

1/4

W.P.No. 5584 of 2017

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed against the Office Order No.25 of 2016 dated

¶20

26.07.2016 passed by the first respondent and quash the same as illegal and not

¶21

binding on the petitioner.

¶22

2 . On perusal of the order impugned in this writ petition, it appears that the

¶23

petitioner was appointed as ESIC Senior Resident (ESIC-SR) under ESIC Residency Scheme for utilization of services under Bond. Against the condition prescribed in the impugned order directing the petitioner to submit bond through declaration as per MCI norms, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶24

3 . Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner.

¶25

4 . The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submit that the

¶26

petitioner has executed a bond and consequently she has deposited the entire bond amount. The learned Standing Counsel also placed relevant document to substantiate the same before the Court.

¶27

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

¶28

2/4

¶29

W.P.No. 5584 of 2017

¶30

5 . In view of the above factual position, in my considered opinion, no

¶31

further adjudication is required in this writ petition.

¶32

6 . Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous.

¶33

7 . Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶34

8 . There shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

08.01.2024

¶36

Index :Yes/No Neutral Citation :Yes/No

¶37

¶38

¶39

1.The Director (ME), Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Panchdeep Bhavan, C.I.G. Road, New Delhi – 110 002.

¶40

2.E.S.I. Corporation, 143, Sterling Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 34.

¶41

3.The Dean, ESI Medical College and PG-IMSR, K.K.Nagar, Chennai – 600 078.

¶42

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

¶43

3/4

¶44

W.P.No. 5584 of 2017

¶45

BATTU DEVANAND, J.

¶46

¶47

W.P.No. 5584 of 2017 and W.M.P.No. 5948 of 2017

¶48

08.01.2024

¶49

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

¶50

4/4

Soundharya S v. The Director (Me)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soundharya S v. The Director (Me)

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

M.Palanivel, S/o.Molukkan, Vs The Director

S.Krishnaswamy Vs The Secretary to Government

A.Vedhachalam, (Retd) Vs Secretary to Government

S. Murugan, Vs The Principal Secretary to

G. Packialakshmi, Vs Government of Tamil Nadu.

T.Rajendran Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu