Madras High CourtWP/34674/2016disposed of

M.Sasi Kumar v. The Principal Secretary

2016-09-30Honourable Mr Justice R.Subbiah3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 30.09.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH Writ Petition No.34674 of 2016 M.Sasikumar ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, Secretariat, Chennai.

2.The Engineer in Chief and Chief Engineer General, WRD / PWS, Chepauk, Chennai-5.

3.The Chief Engineer WRD /PWD, Trichy Region, Subramaniyapuram, Trichy.

4.The Superintending Engineer PWS/WRD, Middle Cauvery Basin Circle, Subramaniyapuram, Trichy.

5.The Executive Engineer PWD / WRD, River conservancy Division, Court Campus, Trichy-1.

6.The Assistant Executive Engineer PWD/WRD, River Conservancy Sub Division, Lalkudi.

... Respondents.

Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 30.6.2016 to regularize the service of the petitioner within the stipulated time prescribed by this Court.

For Petitioner :

Mr.T.Muruganantham For Respondents :

Mr.A.Zahir Hussain, Govt. Advocate.

ORDER

By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition for a mandamus, directing the first respondent to dispose of his representation dated 30.6.2016 seeking to regularize his service within the stipulated time prescribed by this Court.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he has failed X Standard. In the year 1996, he joined in the office of the respondent department as Nominal Muster Role employee. In the year 2006, he has completed ten years of continuous service. While so, the respondents prepared a list of 985 Nominal Muster Role employees, who have completed ten years of continuous service as on 2009. However, the first respondent has regularized the service of 763 persons leaving 222 persons. Again in the year 2010, with regard to the left over candidates, another list was prepared and in the list, some other candidates, who were not included in the original list, were included, but the name of the petitioner was not included in the list. In this regard, the petitioner sent many representations to the respondents requesting them to regularize his service. But, the same was not considered. Finally, he sent a representation dated 30.6.2016 to the respondents. Since the same was also not considered, left with no other alternative, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition.

4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate, who has taken notice on behalf of the respondents.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions made on either side, without going into the merits of the claim projected by this petitioner, this Court directs the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 30.6.2016 seeking regularization of his service, and pass appropriate orders, on

merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar.

/true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar.

To 1.The Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, Secretariat, Chennai.