Disposed

S.Ragunathan, v. the Superintending Engineer

Madras HC4 Oct 2024WP(MD)/21599/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge of Madras High Court directed the Superintending Engineer to decide the pending statutory appeal within 12 weeks after fair hearing, disposing of the writ petition filed by S.Ragunathan against stoppage of annual increment.

What did the court decide?

First respondent directed to pass final orders on the pending statutory appeal within 12 weeks after fair hearing.

S.Ragunathan, Vs the Superintending Engineer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.21599 of 2016

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 04.10.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.21599 of 2016 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD) Nos.15442, 15443, 15444 & 15445 of 2016 & 20528 of 2023

¶8

S.Ragunathan ... Petitioner

¶9

-vs-

¶10

1.The Superintending Engineer Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited Sivagangai Electricity Distribution Circle Sivagangai

¶11

2.The Executive Engineer Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited Karaikudi

¶12

3.The Assistant Executive Engineer Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited Town/Karaikudi

¶13

_____________ Page 1 of 5_

¶14

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

¶15

4.The Assistant Executive Engineer Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited Construction and Improvement Karaikudi

¶16

W.P.(MD) No.21599 of 2016

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Memo No.Se.Po/Pa/Karai/Vu.Ni.Aa/Ni.Me/Ko.Thani/A.No. 438/16 dated 14.06.2016 passed by the second respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Special Grade Foreman Driver with all attendant monetary and service benefits.

¶19

For Petitioner : Ms.Hema Bharathi for Mr.A.Rahul For Respondents : Mr.B.Ramanthan Standing Counsel

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order

¶22

dated 14.06.2016, passed by the second respondent, imposing a punishment of stoppage of annual increment at the rate of 3% of the basic pay and grade

¶23

Page 2 of 5

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.(MD) No.21599 of 2016

¶26

pay in the revised scales for a period of one year without cumulative effect excluding the period spent on leave, if any, on the petitioner.

¶27

2. Admittedly, a statutory appeal has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the second respondent before the first respondent and the same is still pending.

¶28

3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents also confirms, on instructions, that the appeal filed by the petitioner is still pending on the file of the first respondent.

¶29

4. In view the same, this Court deems it fit to direct the first respondent to pass final orders on the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the impugned order dated 14.06.2016, passed by the second respondent, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶30

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also not having any

¶31

serious objection, if such a direction is issued.

¶32

_____________ Page 3 of 5_

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(MD) No.21599 of 2016

¶35

6. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the first respondent to pass final orders, on merits and in accordance with law, on the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner on 22.10.2016, aggrieved by the impugned order dated 14.06.2016, passed by the second respondent, after affording a fair hearing to the petitioner, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶36

04.10.2024

¶37

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶38

krk

¶39

Page 4 of 5

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.(MD) No.21599 of 2016

¶42

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

¶43

krk

¶44

W.P.(MD) No.21599 of 2016 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.15442, 15443, 15444 & 15445 of 2016 & 20528 of 2023

¶45

04.10.2024

¶46

Page 5 of 5

¶47

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

S.Ragunathan, v. the Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Ragunathan, v. the Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Aandi Vs the Chief Education Officer

R.Arulraj Vs The Director of Elementary Education

T.Balamurugan, Vs The Director of Elementary Education

J. Moovendhan Vs the Director

P.Hemalatha Vs the Director of Elementary

S.Vimala Vs the Director of Elementary