Allowed

Sivakumar.S v. The Commissioner

Madras HC7 Jun 2024WP(MD)/11854/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a disabled employee seeking promotion. The court directed the State Commission for persons with disabilities to consider his representations regarding his promotion eligibility within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representations and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

Sivakumar.S Vs The Commissioner — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.11854 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 07.06.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.11854 of 2024

S.Sivakumar

... Petitioner

vs.

1.The Commissioner,

¶11

Tamil Nadu State Commission for persons with disabilities, Lady Wellington College Campus, Kamarajar Salai,

¶12

Chennai - 05.

¶13

2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Commissionerate of Municipal Administration, No.75, Santhome High Road, MRC Nagar, R.A.Puram, Chennai - 28.

¶14

3.The Commissioner Arupukottai Municipality, Arupukottai, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to promote the petitioner as a record clerk or in any other suitable post in the 3rd respondent municipality by considering the petitioner's

¶16

1/5

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.(MD)No.11854 of 2024

¶19

representations dated 26.07.2023 and 07.06.2023 in light of the order made by the 1st respondent in file No. 007827/LO/2022 dated 11.05.2023 within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff For Respondents : Mr.M.Ramesh Government Advocate for R1 and R2

¶21

Mr.N.Dilipkumar for R3

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Heard Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff, learned counsel appearing for

¶24

the petitioner. Mr.M.Ramesh, learned Government Advocate takes notice for R1 and R2 and Mr.N.Dilipkumar, learned counsel takes notice for the third respondent.

¶25

2. The petitioner who is working as a Pump Room Attender in

¶26

the third respondent Municipality has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the second respondent to promote him as a record clerk or to any other suitable post in the third respondent municipality by considering his representations dated 26.07.2023 and 07.06.2023 in the

¶27

2/5

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.(MD)No.11854 of 2024

¶30

light of the order made by the first respondent in file No. 007827/ LO/2022 dated 11.05.2023 within a stipulated time.

¶31

3. The petitioner was appointed as a Pump Room Attender in the year 2016 under the quota reserved for physically disabled persons. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite his promotion to the post of Office Assistant / Record Clerk is due, he was not promoted in view of his physical disability and that his representations were also not considered so far. Hence, the writ petition.

¶32

4. It is learnt the second respondent is the appropriate authority to pass orders in the representations of the petitioner.

¶33

In view of the same, the writ petition is allowed and the second respondent is directed to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 26.07.2023 and 07.06.2023 in the light of the orders of the first respondent in file No. 007827/LO/2022 dated 11.05.2023 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four

¶34

3/5

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.(MD)No.11854 of 2024

¶37

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶38

07.06.2024

¶39

NCC: Yes/No Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order

¶40

mbi

¶41

¶42

1.The Commissioner, Tamil Nadu State Commission for persons with disabilities, Lady Wellington College Campus, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai - 05. 2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Commissionerate of Municipal Administration, No.75, Santhome High Road, MRC Nagar, R.A.Puram, Chennai - 28.

¶43

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

¶44

4/5

¶45

W.P.(MD)No.11854 of 2024

¶46

R.N.MANJULA, J.

¶47

mbi

¶48

W.P.(MD)No.11854 of 2024

¶49

07.06.2024

¶50

5/5

¶51

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

Sivakumar.S v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivakumar.S v. The Commissioner

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

A.Radhakrishnan Vs Joint Director of Health Services

V.Malathi Vs The District Collector

Gunaseelan Vs the Chairman

K.Chellamuthu Vs The District Collector

A.Vijaya Vs The Director

M.Ravichandran, (Edp No.7078) Vs The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd.