D. Balakrishnan vs The Thiruthani Co-Operative on 9 November, 2009

Madras High Court
D. Balakrishnan vs The Thiruthani Co-Operative on 9 November, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 9.11.2009

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR

W.P. No.  30089  of 2004

.......


D. Balakrishnan		                                                ...Petitioner



                                                 Vs.


The  Thiruthani Co-operative
  Sugar Mills Ltd., 
rep. by its Administrator,
Thiruvalangadu, 
Thiruthani TK.,
Thiruvallur District 631 210.					  ... Respondent


Prayer:     Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India  to issue a Writ of Mandamus  directing the  respondent to permit the petitioner to continue his service as Sugarcane Assistant, with continuity of service and other attendant benefits by considering his written representations dated 1.10.2003, 6.1.2004 and his lawyer's notice dated 2.9.2004 within a reasonable period to be fixed. 

 		 For Petitioner             :  Mrs. R. Neelakandan

                  For Respondent         :   Mr. K. Rajasekaran
						     

ORDER

This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to consider the representation dated 1.10.2003 and 6.10.2003.

2. The Court is unable to understand as to how the writ petition is maintainable in the light of what has been stated in para 3 of the affidavit.

” The petitioner states that he has been issued with a memo of charges dated 10.11.2001 in N.K.No.E15322/2001, wherein it has been stated that he was in unauthorised absence for more than 10 days without any prior permission and thereby he was also asked to show cause as to why disciplinary action as per standing order No.19(5) of certified standing orders of the sugar mills should not be taken against him. ”

4. The fact that the memorandum of charge has been issued on the petitioner, which has also been confirmed by the respondent in the counter affidavit, no direction can be issued to the authorities to consider any representation. The petitioner can pursue and contest the charge memo issued and agitate the claim in accordance with law. The question of continuing in service based on the representation does not arise at this point of time.

5. Finding no merits, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

09.11.2009
ra

Index: No
Internet: Yes

The Thiruthani Co-operative
Sugar Mills Ltd.,
rep. by its Administrator,
Thiruvalangadu,
Thiruthani TK.,
Thiruvallur District 631 210.

R. SUDHAKAR,J.,

WP No. 30089 of 2004

Date: 09.11.2009

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *