G.Chellapandi v. The Registrar General

Writ Petition (MD).No.23209 of 2019 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.11.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.THARANI Writ Petition (MD).No.23209 of 2019 and W.M.P(MD).No.19936 of 2019 G.Chellapandi ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

2.The Principal District Judge, Madurai.

... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the first respondent in ROC.No.1344/2015/C1 dated 07.09.2018 and quash the same as arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to include the period from 02.07.2007 to 24.03.2013 as service period of the petitioner and pay the service benefits payable to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.K.P.S.Palanivel Rajan For Respondents : Mr.D.Sivaraman

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J.) Heard Mr.K.P.S.Palanivel Rajan, learned counsel appearing for writ petitioner and Mr.D.Sivaraman, learned counsel who accepts notice on behalf of respondents.

2.After elaborately hearing the learned counsel on either side and carefully perusing the materials placed on record, we find that there is no error in the order passed by the first respondent dated 07.09.2018 rejecting the review petition filed by the petitioner. The reasons assigned are cogent and there is no perversity pointed out by the petitioner. To be noted that the petitioner has not challenged the order of compulsory retirement, which has attained finality. The impugned order is on account of subsequent endeavour made by the petitioner to treat the period of absence as period of duty which is thoroughly misconceived and having suffered an order of the original authority and appeal filed was rejected assigning https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/4

Writ Petition (MD).No.23209 of 2019 reasons. This order was questioned by way of review petition before the first respondent, who was also assigned independent reasons, considering all the factors.

3.We find that there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the first respondent. Therefore, the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (co) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) rmk To 1.The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

2.The Principal District Judge, Madurai.

+1 CC to Mr.D.SIVARAMAN ( SR-96188[F] dated 05/11/2019 ) +1 CC to Mr.K.P.S.PALANIVELRAJAN, Advocate ( SR-96218[F] dated 05/11/2019 ) Writ Petition (MD).No.23209 of 2019 05.11.2019 VB(29.11.2019) 2P 5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/4