S.Manikandan, v. The Government Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:03.02.2016
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA W.P(MD)No.2398 of 2016 S.Manikandan ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Government of Tamilnadu, Rep. By its Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai - 15.
3.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.
4.The Block Development Officer, Nainarkovil, Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to pass orders on the petitioner's representation, dated 18.12.2015, within the time frame fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mrs.J.Nisha Banu For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.S.Satheeshkumar, Additional Government Pleader For R-4 : Mr.V.Muruganandham, Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
Mr.S.Satheeshkumar, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr.V.Muruganandham, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the fourth respondent.
2. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. This Writ petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to pass orders on the petitioner's representation, dated 18.12.2015, within a stipulated time. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
4. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on compassionate ground. Though the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant, his juniors, who joined service as Junior Assistant subsequent to the appointment of the petitioner, were promoted as Assistant earlier to him. Though the petitioner's juniors had marched over him and he was deprived of promotional opportunities in time, due to the delay in sending the petitioner to Bhavanisagar Training and hence, the petitioner gave a representation to the respondents, dated 18.12.2015. However, according to the petitioner, the respondents have not considered the representation given by the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in similar circumstances in W.P.No.3544 of 2015, vide order dated 12.02.2015, this Court had directed the first respondent to consider the case of the petitioner therein in the light of the order in G.O.(2 pa) No.7, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (pa.a-4), Department, dated 30.01.2012.
4. The learned Additional Government Pleaders submitted that the first respondent may be directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, within the time frame.
5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also taking into consideration the limited prayer sought for in the Writ Petition, without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the case, I direct the first respondent to consider the representation, dated 18.12.2015 and pass orders on the same, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No Costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Records) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
To 1.The Principal Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner,Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai - 15.
3.The District Collector,Ramanathapuram District,Ramanathapuram. 4.The Block Development Officer, Nainarkovil,Ramanathapuram District.
+1cc to Special Government Pleader in SR.No.6846 +1cc to Mrs.J.Nisha Banu, Advocate in SR.No. 6550 W.P(MD)No.2398 of 2016 03.02.2016 pm PA/NGM-SS/10.02.2016/2P/7C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/