Madras High CourtWP/2360/2014dismissed

A.Balachandran v. The Chairman

2022-03-17Honourable Mr Justice V. Parthiban3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 17.03.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN W.P.No.2360 of 2014 A.Balachandran

...Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Chairman, Steel Authority of India Limited,

2. The Joint Secretary to Government of India, Minister of Steel, Department of Steel, New Delhi.

3. The Director (Personnel) Steel Authority of India Ltd.,

4. The Executive Director, (Personnel & Admn.,) Steel Authority of India Ltd.,

5. The Executive Director, (Law) & P.L.O.

Steel Authority of India Ltd.,

6. The Executive Director, Steel Authority of India Ltd., Salem Steel Plant, Salem - 13.

7. The General Manager, (P & A) Steel Authority of India Ltd., Salem Steel Plant, Salem - 13. ...Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records relating to the letter of the 7th respondent in his Letter Ref.PL.3 (L-78) dated 09.03.2013, quashing the same and directing the respondents to give notional promotion to the petitioner in the post of Assistant General Manager, (E-6, Grade) in Steel Authority of India from the year 2008, with all monetary benefits arising thereof. For Petitioner :

Mr.P.Chandrasekaran For Respondents :

Mr.J.Madanagopal Rao, Central Government Standing Counsel (for R.1 to R.4) Mr.S.Shivathanumohan for M/s.S.Ramasubramaniyan Associates (for R.5 to R.7)

ORDER

When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is brought to the knowledge of this Court by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent has been notified by the Central Government vide Notification dated 31.03.2010 under Sub-Section 3 of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunal Act meaning that all the matters concerning the service commission of the employees are amenable to the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal only and not before this Court. 2.In view of the same this Court finds that the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach appropriate forum if he chooses so. Therefore the Writ Petition stands dismissed as not maintainable. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mrm To