Madras High Court
M.Abdul Kareem vs The Chief Engineer on 23 June, 2015
Author: S.Vaidyanathan
Bench: S.Vaidyanathan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.06.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
Writ Petition(MD).No.10135 of 2015
M.Abdul Kareem ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Chief Engineer,
Agriculture Engineering Department,
Anna Salai, Nandhanam,
Chennai ? 600 035.
2.The Deputy Director of Horticulture (In-charge),
Horticulture Department,
Pudukkottai,
Pudukkottai District.
3.The Executive Engineer,
Agriculture Engineering Department,
Pudukkottai,
Pudukkottai District. ... Respondents
PRAYER
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent herein to
regularize the service of the petitioner from 11.12.2010 to 15.05.2011 by
treating the said period as compulsory wait and to pay all service and other
consequential benefits legally entitled to him with 18% interest per annum
within the time frame that maybe fixed by this Honourable Court.
!For petitioner : Mr.B.Brijesh Kishore
For respondents : Mr.R.Velmurugan
Government Advocate
:ORDER
The prayer in the Writ Petition is for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent herein to regularize the service of the petitioner from 11.12.2010 to 15.05.2011 by treating the said period as compulsory wait and to pay all service and other consequential benefits legally entitled to him with 18% interest per annum within the time frame that maybe fixed by this Honourable Court.
2.Mr.R.Velmurugan, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents and by consent of both sides, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal, at the stage of admission itself.
3.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already made verbal and written representations and the last one is dated 06.01.2014 and that the second respondent has already made a communication to the first respondent wherein it has been stated that the second respondent has already sent the details sought by the first respondent. Therefore, it would suffice if the representation of the petitioner is disposed of, on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
4.Since the representation is being under consideration by the first respondent, the relief sought by the petitioner as such cannot be granted. However, taking note of the communication dated 11.09.2014 sent by the second respondent and that the issue has to be decided by the first respondent, this Court directs the first respondent to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 06.01.2014 and also the communication of the second respondent dated 11.09.2014, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. If on a specified date the petitioner does not appear for personal hearing, orders may be passed based on the available records after recording the absence of the Party/Parties.
5.With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.
To
1.The Chief Engineer, Agriculture Engineering Department, Anna Salai, Nandhanam, Chennai ? 600 035.
2.The Deputy Director of Horticulture (In-charge), Horticulture Department, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.
3.The Executive Engineer, Agriculture Engineering Department, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District..