← Library
Madras High CourtWP/19459/2007dismissed as infructuous

R. Pandian v. The State Of Tamilnadu

2020-11-27Honourable Mr Justice P. Velmurugan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 27.11.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN W.P.No.19459 of 2007 (T.A.No.1 of 2003) R.Pandian ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order) Department, Fort St.George, Madras - 600009.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai Rural, Madurai District.

... Respondents PRAYER :

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records of the second respondent comprised in his proceedings in D.O.793/88/J1/21942/88 dated 03.08.1988, quash the said proceedings of the second respondent dated 03.08.1988 and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all arrears of pay, continuity of service with all attendant service benefits, perquisites and privileges. For Petitioner : Mr.R.N.Ram Kumar No appearance For Respondents: Mr.K.Magesh Special Government Pleader

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the second respondent in D.O.793/88/J1/21942/88 dated 03.08.1988, quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all arrears of pay, continuity of service with all attendant service benefits, perquisites and privileges.

2. Originally the writ petition was filed in the year 1988, subsequently, due to establishment of Administrative Tribunal, the same was transferred as T.A.No.1 of 2003 but due to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

abolition of the Tribunal, the matter was transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.19459 of 2007.

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Even on the earlier occasion, when the matter was posted on 16.10.2020, there was no representation for the petitioner.

4. At the time, when the petitioner was suspended by the second respondent vide order dated 03.08.1988, the age of the petitioner was about 34 years and now in the year 2020, the age of the petitioner must be about 64 years and he must have also attained supeannuation. Since the matter is very old, the learned Special Government Pleader is not able to get instructions from the Department concerned i.e. the respondents.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case that the matter is very old and there is no instructions from the respondents and even the petitioner must have attained superannuation, nothing survives in this writ petition for further adjudication. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed as infructuous. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sni To

1. The Commissioner and Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Public (Law and Order) Department, Fort St.George, Madras - 600009.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai Rural, Madurai District.

+1cc to the Government Pleader in SR.NO..38258 W.P.No.19459 of 2007 ssi(CO) rv(18/01/2021) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/