Skip to content
Try for free
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.
See full guide →

R.Rajagopal vs the Managing Director

R.Rajagopal vs The Managing Director

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Mar 13, 2025
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1836921

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
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
WP/8617/2025

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

R.Rajagopal

Respondent

The Managing Director

Excerpt

.....disabilities act, 2016 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to retain the petitioner in shop no.9854, mannarkudi till the age of superannuation.for petitioner : mr.v.govardhanan for respondents : mr.k.balakrishnan standing counselorderthe writ petitioner is working as a supervisor in tasmac in tiruvarur district. he is physically challenged with 60% disability. he had been visited with an order of transfer, transferring him from shop no.9854, rukmanipalayam road, mannarkudi to shop no.9852, mukkulam sathanur, within the same district. 2.the learned standing counsel for the respondents states that the distance between the two shops is approximately 25 km. 3.however, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that, due to the disability suffered by the petitioner, this transfer would have an adverse effect on him. 4.it is seen from the records that a representation had been submitted on behalf of the petitioner by the union. however, it would be more appropriate for the petitioner to present his individual concerns by highlighting the difficulties he would face due to the transfer order. 5.the petitioner is directed to submit a separate representation to the first respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. upon receipt of such representation, the first respondent may decide whether to proceed with the transfer or reconsider the decision. such decision should be taken within four weeks from the date of receipt of the fresh representation from the petitioner. till such time, the petitioner may continue to work at shop no.9854, rukmanipalayam road, mannarkudi. 6.the writ petition stands disposed of. no costs. consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 13.03.2025 index : yes / no neutral citation : yes / no speaking order : yes / no tk to 1.the managing director 2.the senior divisional officer3.the senior regional manager trichy regional office, office of district collector, old.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 13.03.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN AND WMP NOS.9631 AND 9632 OF 2025 R.Rajagopal Working as Supervisor TASMAC, Thiruvarur, Son of Ramasamy No.7E, Vannankulam South IB Road, Rajan Thoppu, Mannargudi, Thiruvarur - 641 001. ... Petitioner VS. 1.The Managing Director 2.The Senior Divisional Officer 3.The Senior Regional Manager Trichy Regional Office, Office of District Collector, Old Building 1st Floor, DRO Chamber, Tiruchirappalli - 620 001. 4.The District Manager Thiruvarur District Office, R.S.No.461/2, 461/4 and 462/1, Master Plan Complex, Mannargudi Road, Vilamal, Tiruvarur - 610 004. ... Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the transfer order bearing Ref. st Na.Ka.No.R2/6821/2024 dated 31.01.2025 passed by the 1 respondent Corporation wherein the petitioner is transferred from Shop No.9854, Rukmanipalayam Road, Mannarkudi to Shop No.9852, Mukkulam Sathanur without considering that he is a physically challenged person and to quash the same as being contrary to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to retain the petitioner in Shop No.9854, Mannarkudi till the age of superannuation.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Govardhanan For Respondents : Mr.K.Balakrishnan Standing Counsel

ORDER

The writ petitioner is working as a Supervisor in TASMAC in Tiruvarur District. He is physically challenged with 60% disability. He had been visited with an order of transfer, transferring him from Shop No.9854, Rukmanipalayam Road, Mannarkudi to Shop No.9852, Mukkulam Sathanur, within the same District. 2.The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents states that the distance between the two shops is approximately 25 km. 3.However, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that, due to the disability suffered by the petitioner, this transfer would have an adverse effect on him. 4.It is seen from the records that a representation had been submitted on behalf of the petitioner by the Union. However, it would be more appropriate for the petitioner to present his individual concerns by highlighting the difficulties he would face due to the transfer order. 5.The petitioner is directed to submit a separate representation to the first respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such representation, the first respondent may decide whether to proceed with the transfer or reconsider the decision. Such decision should be taken within four weeks from the date of receipt of the fresh representation from the petitioner. Till such time, the petitioner may continue to work at Shop No.9854, Rukmanipalayam Road, Mannarkudi. 6.The writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 13.03.2025 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No TK To 1.The Managing Director 2.The Senior Divisional Officer

3.The Senior Regional Manager Trichy Regional Office, Office of District Collector, Old Building 1st Floor, DRO Chamber, Tiruchirappalli - 620 001. 4.The District Manager Thiruvarur District Office, R.S.No.461/2, 461/4 and 462/1, Master Plan Complex, Mannargudi Road, Vilamal, Tiruvarur - 610 004.

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

TK 13.03.2025

Continue Your Research

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2025 Same Parties R.Rajagopal vs The Managing Director Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice C.V. Karthikeyan

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales