M.Venkatesan, v. The State Of Tamilnadu,

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 16.11.2015 Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM Writ Petition No.35544 of 2015 M.Venkatesan .. Petitioner vs.

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.

2. The Director of Rural Development, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai-15.

3. The Collector, Vellore District, Vellore.

4. The Wallajapet Commissioner/ Block Development Officer, Wallajah Panchayat Union, Vellore District.

.. Respondents Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus, to direct the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner on completion of 10 years of service from 01.06.1994 with all monetary benefits.

For petitioner :

Mr.R.Singaravelan For respondents :

Mr.K.Kudlasekaran, GA

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner on completion of 10 years of service from 01.06.1994 with all monetary benefits.

2. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Day and Night Watchman in the 4th respondent Panchayat Union in the year 1994 and he has been serving as such on and from 01.06.1994.

The grievance of the petitioner is that his service was not regularized even after completing 20 years of continuous service.

3. The petitioner would claim that on 27.5.2015, the 4th respondent has sent a proposal to the 3rd respondent/District Collector, Vellore District, seeking for regularization of services of the petitioner, who in turn, sought for clarification from the 4th respondent, which was also furnished by the 4th respondent. Thereafter, as there was no action, the petitioner made a representation to the first respondent on 19.10.2015 along with G.O.Ms.No.131 Rural Development and Panchayat Department, dated 01.10.2015, requesting to regularize his services, which was not considered and hence the writ petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

5. Though a larger relief is sought for in the writ petition, however, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it would suffice to direct the respondents to dispose of the representation made by the petitioner dated 19.10.2015

6. Though the petitioner has prayed for a larger relief, this Court, considering the facts of the case, without going into the merits of the same, directs the third respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation, dated 19.10.2015 on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision taken to the petitioner. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CS V ) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar Suk To 1.The Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department, The State of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai-9.

2. The Director of Rural Development, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai-15.

3. The Collector, Vellore District, Vellore.

4. The Wallajapet Commissioner/ Block Development Officer, Wallajah Panchayat Union, Vellore District.

+1 cc to M/s.Srividya, Advocate, sr.61904 +1 cc to Mr.S.Gunasekaran, Advocate, sr.62391 +1 cc to Government Pleader, sr.62049 WP 35544 of 2015 mg co kra 14.12.2015