R. Gurunathan v. The Managing Director

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.07.2019

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P[MD]No.7575 of 2014 R.Gurunathan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Managing Director, Tamilnadu Cements Corporation Limited, Corporate Office, "LLA Buildings" II Floor, 735, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

2.The Deputy General Manager, i/c, Ariyalur Cement Factory, Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited, Ariyalur-621 729, Ariyalur District.

3.The Deputy General Manager, i/c, Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited, Tamil Nadu Cements Post, Alangulam, Rajapalayam (Via), Virudhunagar District-626 127.

4.The General Manager (Marketing), Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited, Corporate Officer, "LLA Buildings"

II Floor, 735, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

5.The Manager (Marketing), Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited, Regional Officer (Marketing), 288A, LIC Colony, Opposite to New Bus Stand, Salem-636 004.

6.The Deputy Manager (Marketing), Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited, 90/12A, Sathyasai Nagar Main Road, Sathyasai Nagar, Madurai-625 003.

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

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representations dated 20.08.2013 & 13.03.2014 and direct the respondents 3 & 6 to disburse the medical leave salary covered under the period of 15.01.2013 to 26.05.2013.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sathish Babu For R 1 to R3 & R6 : Mr.A.Sivaji For R4 & R5 : No Appearance

O R D E R

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is for a direction to direct the first respondent to consider the representations submitted by the writ petitioner on 20.08.2013 and 13.03.2014.

2.Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents states that during the pendency of the writ petition, the representations submitted by the writ petitioner were considered and an order was passed on 26.05.2014.

3.Learned Counsel for the petitioner also states that against the order dated 26.05.2014, the writ petitioner preferred an appeal to the appellate authority.

4.This being the factum, the writ petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent authority for the purpose of disposal of the appeal in the manner known to law. However, with reference to the relief sought for in the present writ petition, the same need not be considered now as the same has already been considered by the respondents and an order was passed.

5.Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AD-I) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS ) +1 CC to Mr.A.SIVAJI, Advocate SR-76549.

+1 CC to Mr.N.SATHISH BABU, Advocate SR-76192. W.P[MD]No. 7575 of 2014 CS(05.08.2019) 2P 3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/