Disposed

S. Ramu v. The Chief Engineer/Personnel

Madras HC7 Mar 2024WP/642/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus directing TANGEDCO to absorb him as a Mazdoor pursuant to a 2002 labour order confirmed by the Division Bench. Respondents stated his claim was rejected by communication dated 30.1.2021 after Single Judge direction; petitioner to assail that communication in a fresh writ with contentions kept open.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; petitioner free to file a new writ petition against the 30.1.2021 rejection with contentions open.

S. Ramu Vs The Chief Engineer/Personnel — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.642 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 07.03.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

W.P.No.642 of 2018

S.Ramu .. Petitioner

1 The Chief Engineer (Personnel) Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. (TANGEDCO) No.144 Anna Salai Chennai - 600 002.

¶12

2 The Superintending Engineer Thirupathur Electricity Distributive Circle TNEB-Vaniyambadi Division Vellore District. .. Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to absorb the petitioner as a Mazdoor on par with his juniors with all consequential benefits in compliance of the order of Inspector of Labour passed in Na.Ka.E.2329/2001, dated 29.10.2002, confirmed by Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.17628/04, dated 24.10.2008.

¶14

For the Petitioner : Mr.S.N.Ravichandran

¶15

For the Respondents : Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co

¶16

_____________ Page 1 of 4_

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.642 of 2018

¶19

ORDER

¶20

(Order of the court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶21

Heard Mr.S.N.Ravichandran, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr.Anand Gopalan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co. for the respondents.

¶22

It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that, pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge, the case of the petitioner was considered and, under communication dated 30.1.2021, the claim of the petitioner is rejected.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would assail the said communication by filing a writ petition.

¶24

The petitioner may assail the said communication by filing a writ petition. In that event, all the contentions raised in the present writ petition are also kept open.

¶25

The writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to

¶26

Page 2 of 4

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.642 of 2018

¶29

costs.

¶30

(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.) 07.03.2024 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No sasi

¶31

To 1 The Chief Engineer/Personnel Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. (TANGEDCO) No.144 Anna Salai Chennai - 600 002.

¶32

2 The Superintending Engineer Thirupathur Electricity Distributive Circle TNEB-Vaniyambadi Division Vellore District.

¶33

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

¶34

_____________ Page 3 of 4_

¶35

W.P.No.642 of 2018

¶36

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J.

(sasi)

W.P.No.642 of 2018

07.03.2024

_____________ Page 4 of 4_

¶41

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

S. Ramu v. The Chief Engineer/Personnel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Ramu v. The Chief Engineer/Personnel

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/S.Sri Mangala Rocks Vs R.Thamaraiselvan

M/S.Jai Sakthi Educational Trust, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Consolidated Construction Vs Union of India Rep.by the Secy

V.Murali Mohan Vs Tamil Nadu Housing Board

M/S.City Union Bank Vs the Sub Registrar

P.Radhakrishnan Vs State Bank of India