A. Palanikumar and Others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St.George, Chennai and Others

A. Palanikumar and Others vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St.George, Chennai and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Sep 22, 2016

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1188205

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1188205
Court: Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge: The Honourable Dr.(Mrs.) Justice S. Vimala
Decided On: Sep 22, 2016
Case Number: W.P(MD) No. 18186 of 2016
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

A. Palanikumar and Others

Respondent

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St.George, Chennai and Others

Excerpt

.....appointed as electrician and the petitioners 2 to 5 as wireman in the year 1998 and have been working in the 3 rd respondent corporation; that they have no avenue for promotion in the corporation, as there is no separate service rules for the post being held by the petitioners in the street light section of the 3 rd respondent corporation; the 3 rd respondent sent a proposal dated 26.04.2011 to the 2nd respondent, recommending either to bring the petitioners under the purview of the existing services rules or to frame appropriate service rules to them for promotion to the higher posts. 4. according to the learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent, the proposal submitted by the 3rd respondent has to be considered by the 2 nd respondent and after the approval being accorded by the 2nd respondent, further course of action will be taken by the 1st respondent. if this court grants two and three months' time, the entire exercise will be completed. 5. considering the fact that the petitioners are longing for promotion for quite a long time, the respondents are directed to complete the whole exercise within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. with the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. no costs.

Full Judgment

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action on the proposal of the 3rd respondent dated 26.04.2011 and 21.04.2016 relating to the promotion of the petitioners to the higher post either by bringing the petitioners under the purview of the existing service rules or by framing appropriate service rules so as to enable the petitioners to get promotion to the higher post.)

1. This petition has been filed, seeking to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action on the proposal of the 3rd respondent dated 26.04.2011 and 21.04.2016 relating to the promotion of the petitioners to the higher post either by bringing the petitioners under the purview of the existing service rules or by framing appropriate service rules so as to enable the petitioners to get promotion to the higher post.

2. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 1st petitioner was originally appointed as Electrician and the petitioners 2 to 5 as Wireman in the year 1998 and have been working in the 3 rd respondent Corporation; that they have no avenue for promotion in the Corporation, as there is no separate service rules for the post being held by the petitioners in the Street Light Section of the 3 rd respondent Corporation; the 3 rd respondent sent a proposal dated 26.04.2011 to the 2^nd respondent, recommending either to bring the petitioners under the purview of the existing services rules or to frame appropriate service rules to them for promotion to the higher posts.

4. According to the learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent, the proposal submitted by the 3^rd respondent has to be considered by the 2 nd respondent and after the approval being accorded by the 2nd respondent, further course of action will be taken by the 1st respondent. If this Court grants two and three months' time, the entire exercise will be completed.

5. Considering the fact that the petitioners are longing for promotion for quite a long time, the respondents are directed to complete the whole exercise within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

Same Court & Year Chennai Madurai · 2016 Same Parties A. Palanikumar and Others vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by... Same Subject Education Same Judge The Honourable Dr.(Mrs.) Justice S. Vimala