P.Krishnan v. The Secretary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN P.Krishnan ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Highways Department, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Director General, Highways Department, Chennai - 600 025.
3. The Chief Engineer, (H) NABARD & Rural Roads, Chennai - 600 025.
4. The Divisional Engineer, NABARD & Rural Road Division, Salem - 636 001.
... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider 1/6
the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 15.12.2022 for promoting the petitioner to the post of Senior Draughting Officer and to the post of Head Draughting Officer notionally on par with his juniors and to revise and refix the pension and other retirement benefits of the petitioner accordingly within a reasonable time.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.S.Jagadeesan For Respondents : Mr.N.Naveen Kumar, Government Advocate *****
O R D E R
The instant writ petition has been filed with a prayer for issuing a Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 15.12.2022, for promoting the petitioner to the post of Senior Draughting Officer and to the post of Head Draughting Officer notionally on par with his juniors, and to revise and refix the pension and other retirement benefits of the petitioner accordingly, within a reasonable time.
2/6
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was initially appointed as Road Inspector. Thereafter, he was promoted as Assistant Draughtsman and again promoted as Junior Draughting Officer and finally, he was promoted as Draughting Officer. At that time, the petitioner had given an option to be considered for Junior Engineer; however, he came to know that the respondents did not consider the same. Therefore, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was not in a position to get his regular promotion in his original line. In this connection, he has given a representation dated 15.12.2022, which is yet to be considered by the respondents.
3. At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that the alleged representation is of the year 2022, and that if the petitioner gives any fresh representation, they would consider the same within a reasonable time.
4. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials available on record.
3/6
5. In view of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate, without going into the merits of this Writ Petition, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioner to submit a fresh representation within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and on receipt of such representation, the respondents are directed to consider the same and pass orders on their own merits and in accordance with law within a period of six weeks thereafter.
6. In the result, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observations. No costs.
26.06.2025 kv Index : Yes/No Speaking order /Non Speaking Order 4/6
To
1. The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Highways Department, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Director General, Highways Department, Chennai - 600 025.
3. The Chief Engineer, (H) NABARD & Rural Roads, Chennai - 600 025.
4. The Divisional Engineer, NABARD & Rural Road Division, Salem - 636 001.
5/6
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
kv 26.06.2025 6/6