← Library
Madras High CourtWP/27074/2021disposed of

R.Palani v. The District Collector

2023-11-08Honourable Ms Justice R.N.Manjula6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 08.11.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA W.P.

No.27074 of 2021 R.Palani ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector, Ranipet District, Ranipet.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Arakkonam, Ranipet, 3.The Tahsildar, Arakkonam Taluk Office, Arakkonam, Ranipet District.

4.The Village Administrative Officer, Thanikaipolur Village, Arakkonam Taluk, Ranipettai District.

... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to consider and dispose of the petition dated 26.11.2021. For Petitioner : Mr.M.G.B.Jeyakumar For Respondents : Mr.P.Sanjai Gandhi, GA Page No.1 of 6

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider and dispose the petition dated 26.11.2021.

2. Heard Mr.M.G.B.Jeyakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Sanjai Gandhi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

3. The petitioner who has been appointed as Village Assistant on compassionate ground on 15.12.1989 has filed this Writ Petition seeking a direction to dispose of the petition dated 26.11.2021.

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that he had been appointed on compassionate grounds as stated by him on 15.12.1989 and his services were regularised only in the year 1996. The petitioner came to work only till February 2012. Thereafter, the petitioner did not come for work. All of a sudden, he gave a representation by stating that he had attained the age of Page No.2 of 6

superannuation and hence, he should be allowed to retire.

5. Despite the petitioner was absent from the year 2012, no action has been taken by the respondents against the petitioner for his unauthorised absence so far.

6. The learned Government Advocate has further submitted that the third respondent has given a memo seeking explanation from the petitioner for his unauthorised absence. According to the respondents, the petitioner did not give any explanation.

7. Irrespective of the fact whether the petitioner had given any explanation or not, the respondents 1 to 3 ought to have taken some action. So far, the petitioner was neither placed under suspension nor any action has been taken against him. The petitioner has given a representation dated 26.11.2021, for grant an order of retirement. It is upto the respondents 1 to 3 atleast to take a call now and pass appropriate orders on the representation given by the petitioner dated 26.11.2021 Page No.3 of 6

within a period of four weeks.

8. In the result, this Writ Petition is disposed and the respondents 1 to 3 are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 26.11.2021 and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 08.11.2023 Index : Yes Internet : Yes/No gsk Page No.4 of 6

To 1.The District Collector, Ranipet District, Ranipet.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Arakkonam, Ranipet, 3.The Tahsildar, Arakkonam Taluk Office, Arakkonam, Ranipet District.

4.The Village Administrative Officer, Thanikaipolur Village, Arakkonam Taluk, Ranipettai District.

Page No.5 of 6

R.N.MANJULA , J.

gsk 08.11.2023 Page No.6 of 6