Madras High CourtWA/1683/2014disposed of

M.Kannan, v. The Director Of School

2015-03-18Honourable Mr Justice M. Venugopal,Honourable Mr Justice Satish K. Agnihotri3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 18.03.2015

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL W.A. No. 1683 of 2014 and M.P. No.1 of 2014 M.Kannan ... Appellant/Petitioner vs.

1. The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-6.

2. The Joint Director of School Education (Personnel), DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-6.

3. The Chief Educational Officer, Saidapet, Panagal Maligai, Chennai.

4 The District Educational Officer ( North Chennai), Egmore, Dr. Ambedkar Government Higher School Campus, Chennai-8.

5. The District Educational Officer, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.

6. MRS.S.A.Arul Mary, P.A.TO D.E.O THE District Educational Officer, (North Chennai), Egmore, DR. Ambedkar Govt. Hr.School Campus, Chennai.8.

[R6- Impleaded as per order DT.14/10/14 in MP.3/14 In WP.26685/14.].

... Respondents/Respondents

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent as against the common order dated 25.11.2014 passed in W.P. No.26685 of 2014.

W.P. No.26685 of 2014:

Petition presented under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records relating to the transfer order made in Na.Ka.No.100412/A3/E2 dated 22.09.2014 and passed by the Second Respondent and quashing the same and directing the second respondent to retain the petitioner in the post of P.A. to the District Educational Office, Chennai North, till the date of petitioner's retirement i.e. 31.08.2015.

For appellant : Mr. K. Venkataramani, Sr. Counsel for Mr. V. Muthappan For respondents : Mr. D. Krishnakumarm Spl. Government Pleader - R1 to R5

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J.) Heard Mr. K. Venkataramani, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. D. Krishnakumar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 5.

2. During the pendency of the instant appeal, the writ petitioner/appellant has been posted in the office of the Director of Elementary Education at Chennai. Thus, the writ petitioner does not want to press the case on merit. However, it is submitted that the pensionary benefits of the writ petitioner/appellant may be settled at Chennai itself.

3. In view of the above submissions, without expressing any opinion, we hope and expect that the authorities will take steps to settle the pensionary benefits of the writ petitioner at the place where he is working at present as he is likely to retire on attaining super-annuation in Chennai.

4. This writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. Consequently,

connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ra To