V.Chandrasekar v. The Union Of India Rep. By The

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08.04.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU 1.V.Chandrasekar 2.K.S.Balajisrinivasan 3.M.Sakthivel ... Petitioners versus 1.The Union of India represented by the Joint Director Estt.( P&A), Railway Board, New Delhi.

2.The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer/MAS, Divisional Railway Manager's Office, Personnel Branch, Chennai Division, Chennai-600 003.

3.The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Branch, Chennai-600 104.

... Respondents 1/5

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order in OA No.9 of 2006 dated 28.07.2006 on the file of the third respondent herein and quash the same insofar as the rejection of the petitioners prayer to quash the order of the second respondent in MP (C&P)/Misc. dated 30.11.2005 is concerned and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to continue to pay House Rent Allowance and City Compensatory Allowance to the petitioners at Chennai Urban Agglomeration (Grade A-1) rates with all consequential benefits. For the Petitioners :Mr.P.Mohanraj For the Respondents :Mr.P.T.Ramkumar for respondents 1 and 2 Third respondent-Tribunal

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.) The writ petition is filed for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order in OA No.9 of 2006 dated 28.07.2006 on the file of the third respondent herein and quash the same insofar as the rejection of the 2/5

petitioners prayer to quash the order of the second respondent in MP (C&P)/Misc. dated 30.11.2005 is concerned and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to continue to pay House Rent Allowance and City Compensatory Allowance to the petitioners at Chennai Urban Agglomeration (Grade A-1) rates with all consequential benefits.

2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that despite a communication was sent to the petitioners, till date, the counsel has not received any instructions from the petitioners. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed as no instructions.

3. In view of the aforesaid statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the writ petition stands dismissed as no instructions. There shall be no order as to costs.

[D.K.K., J.] [K.B., J.] 08.04.2024 Index : Yes/No mrn 3/5

To 1.The Joint Director Estt.( P&A), Railway Board, New Delhi.

2.The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer/MAS, Divisional Railway Manager's Office, Personnel Branch, Chennai Division, Chennai-600 003.

4/5

D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.

and K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

(mrn) 08.04.2024 5/5