← Library
Madras High CourtWP/10578/2018disposed of

S.Rajendran, v. Government Of Tamil Nadu,

2019-02-20Honourable Mr Justice S.M. Subramaniam2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 20-02-2019

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No.10578 of 2018 And W.M.P.No.12531 and 29473 of 2018 S.Rajendran .. Petitioner - Vs. - 1.Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Agriculture, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

2.The Director of Agriculture, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

.. Respondents Prayer:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to pass appropriate orders enabling the petitioner to be promoted to the post of Administrative Officer with effect from 21.3.2017 and grant the petitioner all consequential benefits.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ravi For Respondents : Mr.S.T.S.Murthi, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.V.Kathirvelu, Special Government Pleader.

O R D E R

The grievance of the writ petitioner is that promotion granted to him during the year 2013 was declined based on the relinquishment letter furnished by the writ petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. However, the name of the writ petitioner was not considered on completion of three years period. Thus, the writ petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition, challenging the entire panel of Office Superintendents for promotion to the post of Administrative Officers.

3. The learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondents, states that the entire panel is stalled on account of the interim order granted by this Court. The learned Additional Advocate General further states that the case of the writ petitioner was duly considered by the authorities and the name of the writ petitioner was not included in the panel on account of the fact that the three years period of relinquishment had not expired.

4. However, the fact remains that the writ petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 31.8.2018. Thus, the stay granted by this Court on 25.4.2018 stands vacated. The respondents are directed to consider the representation of the writ petitioner with reference to the Rules in force and for grant of any other benefits, if it is permissible under the Rules.

5. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar Svn To 1.The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Agriculture, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

2.The Director of Agriculture, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

+1 cc to The Government Pleader, SR.No.16077 WP NO.10578 of 2018 CSL/11.03.2019 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/