← Library
Madras High CourtWP/15916/2018disposed of

K.B.Antony v. The Chairman

2019-09-04Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 04.09.2019

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P.No.15916 of 2018 K.B.Antony ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Chairman, Chennai Port Trust, Chennai - 600 001.

2.P.Narasimhalu ... Respondents Prayer:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to fix the seniority of the petitioner over and above the second respondent in the Mechanical Engineering Department of the first respondent which carried continuously until the petitioner opted for V.R.S., within the timeframe to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.S.Rajamohan For Respondents : Mr.M.Palanimuthu for R1 Standing Counsel No Appearance for R2

O R D E R

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to fix the seniority of the petitioner over and above the second respondent in the Mechanical Engineering Department of the first respondent which carried continuously until the petitioner opted for V.R.S., within the time frame to be stipulated by this Court. 2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent. 3.The writ petition relates to fixation of seniority inbetween the petitioner and the second respondent for which the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

petitioner made representations dated 07.04.2016 and 22.11.2017. However till date the said representations were not considered. Hence, this writ petition.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that without going into the merits of the case, it would suffice, if this Court issues direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representations dated 07.04.2016 and 22.11.2017 and to pass appropriate orders, within a stipulated time frame.

5.Though the name of the second respondent is printed in the cause list today, no one represented the second respondent. However, this Court is not going to pass any order in favour of the petitioner.

6.Considering the limited request made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, I am inclined to issue direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representations dated 07.04.2016 and 22.11.2017, on merits and in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and second respondent and pass appropriate orders, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7.The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. pri Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Chairman, Chennai Port Trust, Chennai - 600 001.

+1cc to Mr.T.S.Rajamohan, Advocate, SR.No.76751 +1cc to M/s.AAV Partners, Advocates,vide SR.No.77264 W.P.No.15916 of 2018 Kak(15/10/2019) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/