← Library
Madras High CourtWP/16928/2019dismissed

M.Loganathan v. The Additional Chief Secretary

2019-09-17Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :17.09.2019

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P.No.16928 of 2019 M. Loganathan ..Petitioner vs.

1. The Additional Chief Secretary and Commissioner of Revenue Administration Chepauk, Chennai.

2. The District Collector, Tiruvannamalai District.

Tiruvannamalai

...Respondents

Prayer:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ order or direction in the nature of writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider and pass order on the petitioner's representation dated 08.11.2017 seeking for notional promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar for the year 2017 and monetary pension benefits on par with his junior.

For Petitioner : Mr. G. Jeremiah For Respondents : Mr. R.S.Selvam Government Advocate

ORDER

The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Village Administrative Officer in the Revenue Department in the year 1984 and thereafter he was promoted as Assistant in the Revenue Department in the year 2012 and subsequently promoted as Revenue Inspector in the year 2013 and then Special Revenue Inspector. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation seeking for relaxation of rules to include his name in the panel of Deputy Tahsildar. Accordingly, the Government issued G.O. (2D) No.291 in favour of the petitioner relaxing the rules for promotion in the post of Deputy Tahsildar. The petitioner further submitted that he superannuated from service on 30.09.2017 without any bare antecedents. The petitioner, again, on 08.11.2017 made a representation to the respondents for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

notional promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar and consequential monetary pension benefits on par with juniors. Even after several reminders dated 29.12.2017 and 08.02.2018, the said representation has not been considered by the respondents till date. Hence, according to the petitioner, he has preferred this Writ Petition.

2. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents filed a counter stating that the representation of the petitioner dated 18.11.2017 had been duly rejected and informed to the petitioner in the office endorsement No.A1/16449/2017 dated 26.06.2019. However, without verifying the same, the petitioner has filed this present writ of Mandamus, which cannot be granted.

3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no further adjudication is required in this petition as the petitioner's representation was considered and rejected by the respondents and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to work out the remedy in the manner known to law. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar bga

1. The Additional Chief Secretary and Commissioner of Revenue Administration Chepauk, Chennai.

2. The District Collector, Tiruvannamalai District.

Tiruvannamalai +1cc to Mr.G.Jeremiah, Advocate, S.R.No.80420 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.80191 W.P.No.16928 of 2019 SV(CO) GN(16/10/2019) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/