State Transport Employees, v. Metro Transport Corporation

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 13.04.2018

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI W.P.No.640 of 2006 and M.P.Nos.750 and 751 of 2006

1. State Transport Employees Union, represented by its General Secretary, No.2, Pallvan Salai, Chennai-2.

2. Bakthavachalam

3. Lingathurai

4. Danasekaran ... Petitioners /Vs/ 1.Metro Transport Corporation Chennai Limited, represented by its Managing Director, No.2, Pallvan Salai, Chennai-2.

2.The General Manager, (Administration)Metro Transport Corporation Chennai Limited,No.2, Pallvan Salai, Chennai-2.

3. K. Elumalai

4. S. Siva Raman

5. P. Panneerselvam

6. P. Rajendran

7. K.S.Aslam

8. R. Booshnam

9. S. Vadivelu ... Respondents PRAYER:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Declaration, to declare that the action of the respondents 1 and2 in promoting the respondents 3 to 9 as Checking Inspectors/Time Keepers as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to grant promotion in accordance with law award costs. For Petitioners :

Mr. V. Ajay Khose For Respondents 1&2 :

Mr. V.R. Kamalanathan * * * * https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

O R D E R

The petitioners have filed the present writ petition to declare that the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in promoting the respondents 3 to 9 as Checking Inspectors / Time Keepers as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to grant promotion in accordance with law.

2.

Mr. Ajay Khose, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that earlier the very same prayer was made before this Court and this court allowed the writ petitions in W.P.No.17305 of 1995 etc., batch dated 26.04.2002 and observed that the persons, who are responsible for causing reckless the order of promotion should be dealt with properly since the respondent Corporation has not followed the procedure in whims and fancies and granted promotion like Checking Inspectors and Time Keepers without considering the seniority. 3.

In the present case, the contesting respondents got promotion and retired from service. Hence, there is no need for further adjudication in this writ petition. However, the order of this Court made in W.P.No.17305 of 1995 etc., batch has to be followed in this writ petition.

4.

In view of the above observation, the writ petition stands closed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar msm To +1cc to Mr. V.R. Kamalanathan, Advocate, S.R.No.27747 W.P.No.640 of 2006 skv(co) cs/08/06/18 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/