Madras High CourtWP(MD)/24219/2016disposed of

R.Flora, W/O.S.Rajesh, v. The Chief Engineer,

2016-12-19Honourable Mr Justice R. Suresh Kumar2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.12.2016

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR W.P.(MD) No.24219 of 2016 R.FLORA W/O.S.RAJESH, 4/400 ANTHONIYAR KOVIL STREET , MELAVILANGULAM, ARASANGUDI POST, TRICHY - 13 ... Petitioner Vs.

1 THE CHIEF ENGINEER, TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD, CHENNAI.

2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, KEERANUR, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT.

3 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, VIRALIMALAI, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT.

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider the petitioner representation dated 10.11.2016 within a stipulated period of time fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Gokul For Respondents : Mr.M.Balasubramanian

ORDER

The prayer in the writ petition is for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 10.11.2016 within a stipulated time fixed by this Court.

2.The petitioner submitted a representation to the 3rd respondent on 10.11.2016, whereby, she has requested the pensionary benefits of her deceased daughter, who was the employee of the respondent Board. Since the said representation, having not been considered by the respondents, the petitioner has come out with the present writ petition.

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

3.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

4.Mr.M.Balasubramanian, learned standing counsel, accepts notice for the respondents. By consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.

5.The learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the proper authority to decide the representation of the petitioner is the Superintending Engineer of Pudukottai District, to whom the representation had not been given. 6.However, on perusal of the copy of the representation filed by the petitioner in the typed set of papers, it is seen that though it was addressed to the 3rd respondent, a copy had been marked to the other authorities, including the said Superintending Engineer. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents, including the Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Pudukottai, to take up the representation of the petitioner dated 10.11.2016 regarding the pensionary benefits of her deceased daughter and decide 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. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AS) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1 THE CHIEF ENGINEER, TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD, CHENNAI. 2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, KEERANUR, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT. 3 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE,VIRALIMALAI, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT. 4 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,(TANGEDCO) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, KEERANUR, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT. RR CSL/PM-AMI/25.01.2017 : 2P/5C W.P.(MD) No.24219 of 2016 19.12.2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/