Madras High CourtWP(MD)/11772/2016disposed of

A.Johnson v. The Managing Director

2016-12-01Honourable Dr. Justice S. Vimala2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.12.2016 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE S.VIMALA Writ Petition (MD) No.11772 of 2016 and W.M.P(MD)No.9031 of 2016 A.Johnson

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd., Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli District.

2.The General Manager, The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd., Nagercoil Region, Kanyakumari District.

3.The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Tirunelveli) Ltd., Nagercoil Region, Thiruvattar Branch, Kanyakumari District.

...Respondents

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitioners as Ticker Examiner on par with his immediate juniors with effect from the date of promotion granted to them by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 21.05.2016 within a stipulated time that may be fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner :Mr.T.Jeen Joseph For Respondents : Mr.K.Sathiyasingh

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner as Ticker Examiner on par with his immediate juniors with effect from the date of promotion granted to them by considering the representation of the petitioner, dated 21.05.2016.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.According to the petitioner, the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor on 1985 and his services were regularised with effect from 01.09.1996. Even though he has put in 31 years of service, the respondent Corporation has not given any promotion to him. However, the other conductors who are juniors to the petitioner granted promotion as Ticket Examiners during June 2015. Therefore, the petitioner has given a representation dated 21.05.2016 to the respondents 1 and 2. Since no order has been passed, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that it is agreeable for the second respondent to consider the representation and to pass orders.

5.Under such circumstances, the second respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 21.05.2016 and to pass appropriate orders, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6.The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P(MD)No.9031 of 2016 is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-II) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai-23.

To +1cc to M/s.K.Sathiya Singh, Advocate in SR.78192 +1cc to M/s.S.C.Herold Singh, Advocate in SR.74961 Writ Petition (MD) No.11772 of 2016 and W.M.P(MD)No.9031 of 2016 01.12.2016 mj PBK/SS-2/KSM 25/01/2017 ::2P-3C:

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/