Disposed¶29

P.Elanselvam v. The District Collector

Madras HC29 Jan 2025WP/39792/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; W.P.No.39792 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015; P.Elanselvam v. District Collector Thiruvallur; Article 226 Constitution of India; writ of Certiorarified Mandamus; termination of service as Sanitary Worker; recovery waived; withdrawal of writ petition; Melur Panchayat; Minjur Panchayat Union; Block Development Officer; Additional Government Pleader Vadivelu Deenadayalan; Mummineni Sudheer Kumar J.; decision dated 29.01.2025; disposed as withdrawn; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Petition permitted to be withdrawn and closed; respondents to waive the recovery proposed under the impugned proceedings dated 03.06.2015, which shall not be effected; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶29

P.Elanselvam Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 03.06.2015 terminating the petitioner's service as Sanitary Worker and imposing recovery ought to be quashed and the petitioner reinstated with consequential monetary benefits (issue not adjudicated; petition withdrawn).

¶14

Court's answer

The petitioner was permitted to withdraw the writ petition insofar as the termination of his services under the impugned proceedings dated 03.06.2015 is concerned.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The recovery proposed through the impugned proceedings dated 03.06.2015 shall not be effected by the respondents.

¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Article 226, Constitution of India) — P.Elanselvam v. The District Collector, Thiruvallur District and others — Challenge by way of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to an order dated 03.06.2015 passed by the President, Melur Panchayat terminating the petitioner's service as Sanitary Worker coupled with an order of recovery, with a consequential prayer for reinstatement with monetary benefits. At hearing, counsel for the petitioner was absent; the petitioner, personally present, sought to withdraw the petition conditional on waiver of the recovery. The learned Additional Government Pleader, on instructions from officers present before the court, submitted that the respondents were ready to waive the recovery. The Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition insofar as the termination under the impugned proceedings dated 03.06.2015 was concerned, and directed that the recovery proposed through those proceedings shall not be effected by the respondents. Writ petition closed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, stood closed. (Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, J., 29.01.2025)

¶1

W.P.No.39792 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 29.01.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.39792 of 2015 and

M.P.No.1 of 2015

P.Elanselvam

... Petitioner

Vs.

The District Collector, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.

¶12

The Block Development Officer, Minjur Panchayat Union, Minjur, Thiruvallur District.

¶13

The President, Melur Panchayat, Minjur Panchayat Union, Minjur, Thiruvallur District 601 203. ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records connected with the impugned order passed by the third respondent dated 03.06.2015, terminating the service of the petitioner as Sanitary Worker coupled with order of recovery and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service as Sanitary Worker with all consequential monetary benefits.

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.39792 of 2015

¶18

For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondents : Mr.Vadivelu Deenadayalan, Additional Government Pleader

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner is not present before this court.

¶21

However, the petitioner, who is present before this court submitted that the petitioner is inclined to withdraw the writ petition provided the respondents waive the recovery proposed under the impugned proceedings dated 03.06.2015 and he has also made an endorsement to that effect.

¶22

Mr.Vadivelu Deenadayalan, learned Additional Government Pleader representing the Respondent No.1, on instructions from the officers who are present before this court submitted that, the respondents are ready to waive the recovery proposed against the petitioner under the impugned proceedings dated 03.06.2015.

¶23

In the light of the above, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the

¶24

writ petition, insofar as the termination of his services under the impugned proceedings dated 03.06.2015 is concerned. However, the recovery proposed

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.39792 of 2015

¶28

through the impugned proceedings dated 03.06.2015 shall not be effected by the respondents.

¶29