Madras High CourtWP/4990/2017disposed of

S.Rajendran, S/O.Sivasamy, v. The Chief Secretary,

2017-02-28Honourable Mr Justice M. Sathyanarayanan3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 28.02.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN W.P.No.4990 of 2017 S. Rajendran ..Petitioner Vs

1. The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu, Fort St. George Chennai-9.

2. The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department.

Fort St George.

Chennai-09.

3. The Principal Secretary to Government.

Public (Special-A) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 09

4. The Principal Secretary/ Commissioner, Revenue Administration, Ezhilagam, Chennai-600 005.

..Respondents Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider and pass order on his representation dated 05.12.2014 and 18.03.2015 and to send necessary proposal for revision of seniority and to promote the petitioner as District Revenue Officer on par with his junior and to grant all consequential benefits.

For Petitioner :

Mr.L. Chandrakumar For Respondents: Mr.P. Sanjai Gandhi Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. Mr.P.Sanjai Gandhi, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioner, at present, is working us a Deputy Collector. The grievances expressed by him is that though he was fully qualified for promotion to the said post as early as in the year 1998, for the reason best known, the promotion have not been given to him. In this regard, the petitioner submitted repeated representations to revise his seniority in the list of Deputy Tahsildar/Tahsildar/Deputy Collector and to include his name for promotion to the post of District Revenue Officer. The petitioner would further aver that the 3rd respondent, vide communication dated 18.02.2015 has sent a proposal to the 2nd respondent through proper channel and since no orders have been passed, the petitioner came forward to file this writ petition.

3. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Sanjay Gnadhi, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

4. Though the petitioner prays for a larger relief, this Court, in the light of the above facts and circumstances and without going into the merits of the claim projected by the petitioner, directs the 2nd respondent to act on the proposal sent by the 2nd respondent with regard to the request made by the petitioner and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision taken to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

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