Allowed

M.S.Gurusamy, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC2 Feb 2024WP/9098/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addresses a writ petition by a retired employee seeking revision of seniority submitted 21 years post-retirement. The court directed the respondents to consider the representation on merits, following legal due process, within four weeks without analyzing the claim's specific merit.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's representation dated 08.09.2011 within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

M.S.Gurusamy, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.9098 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02.02.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶6

W.P.No.9098 of 2013

¶7

M.S.Gurusamy ...Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes & Registration Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. … Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 2 nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 08.09.2011 for revision of his seniority on merits and in accordance with law within a stipulated period.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Prem Narayan For Respondents : Mrs.K.Vasanthamala Government Advocate (Taxes)

¶9

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

1/6

W.P.No.9098 of 2013

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the second respondent to consider the representation dated 08.09.2011 for revision of his seniority on merits and in accordance with law within a stipulated time.

¶14

2.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate

¶15

(Taxes) for the respondent and carefully perused the materials available on record.

¶16

3.The petitioner was recruited as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer in the year 1958. Thereafter, he was promoted as Deputy Commercial Tax Officer in the year 1964. Thereafter, he was promoted as Assistant Commissioner in the year 1979 and having been in the said post for 11 years and retired on attaining the superannuation on 31.05.1990. After 21 years of retirement, he wake up and has submitted a representation dated 08.09.2011 to the second respondent requesting for revision of seniority and the merits in the cadre of Joint Commercial Tax Officer.

¶17

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that at that stage, the claims

¶18

of the inter se officials and directly recruited Joint Commercial Tax Officers have to

¶19

be considered. But, without considering the same, the inter se officials seniority was

¶20

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

¶21

2/6

¶22

W.P.No.9098 of 2013

¶23

decided. Due to that, the rightful seniority of the petitioner has not been duly considered at the relevant point of time.

¶24

5.On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Taxes) contends that

¶25

the petitioner retired in the year 1990 on attaining the superannuation and only after 21 years, he raised a objection for seniority in the cadre of Joint Commercial Tax Officer and as such, the request of the petitioner is impermissible under law and sought to dismiss the writ petition.

¶26

6.Having heard the submissions of the respective counsel and perused the materials available on record as the petitioner is seeking for consideration of his representation in accordance with law, in my considered view without going into merits of the case, it is appropriate to direct the second respondent to consider and dispose of the representation submitted the petitioner by following due process of law and in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations within the stipulated time to meet the interest of justice.

¶27

7.Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second

¶28

respondent to consider and pass the appropriate orders on the representation dated 08.09.2011 of the petitioner in accordance with law by following the applicable rules

¶29

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

¶30

3/6

¶31

W.P.No.9098 of 2013

¶32

and regulations at the relevant point of time within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶33

02.02.2024

¶34

Index: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order pam

¶35

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

4/6

W.P.No.9098 of 2013

1.The Secretary to Government,

¶40

State of Tamil Nadu, Commercial Taxes & Registration Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶41

2.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶42

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

¶43

5/6

¶44

W.P.No.9098 of 2013

¶45

BATTU DEVANAND, J.

¶46

pam

¶47

W.P.No.9098 of 2013

¶48

02.02.2024

¶49

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

¶50

6/6

M.S.Gurusamy, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.S.Gurusamy, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

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

P.Amudharani Vs The Director

K.B.Kirubakar, Asst. Audit Vs Tamil Nadu Generation and

S.K.Ravichandran Vs The General Manager

A.Sivakumar, Motor Vehicle Vs The Transport Commissioner

P.Muthuswami, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

A.Kamalahasan Vs State of Tamil Nadu