Skip to content


M. Murugan Vs. The Director, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Chennai and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberW.P. (MD) No. 9185 of 2012
Judge
AppellantM. Murugan
RespondentThe Director, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Chennai and Others
Excerpt:
.....himself with employment exchange, trichy. likewise, the fourth respondent had also registered his name with employment exchange. in the year 1996, the employment exchange sponsored the name of the petitioner to the post of cook. a bad co-incidence that both the names, father's name and street of the petitioner and fourth respondent remained the same. as stated in the previous paragraph, the call letter for interview fell on lap of fourth respondent. 4. the petitioner was again sponsored by employment exchange in the year 2008 and was appointed as a cook. in between 12 years had rolled out. 5. on a later point of time, the petitioner came to know that he lost his opportunity to gain valuable service and experience in the said appointment and also suffered monetary loss caused due to the.....
Judgment:

(Prayer:Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to regularize the petitioner's service from 06.12.1996 in time scale pay and to confer all the benefits by considering the petitioner's representation dated 04.06.2012 within the period stipulated by this Court.)

Order:

1. The writ petitioner has come out with a prayer to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to regularize his services with effect from 06.12.1996, considering his representation, dated 04.06.2012.

2. It is an unfortunate case that the job opportunity, which was due to the petitioner, was awarded to the fifth respondent, due to mistake and identity, as the name of the petitioner as well as the fifth respondent and also the fathers' name and address remained identical. The third respondent intended to issue a call letter for interview to the petitioner. But unfortunately, it landed in the hands of the fifth respondent. In view of the identical name and address, the fifth respondent was given employment and virtually the petitioner had lost opportunity.

3. The petitioner had completed S.S.L.C in the year 1982-83 and enrolled himself with Employment Exchange, Trichy. Likewise, the fourth respondent had also registered his name with Employment Exchange. In the year 1996, the Employment Exchange sponsored the name of the petitioner to the post of cook. A bad co-incidence that both the names, father's name and street of the petitioner and fourth respondent remained the same. As stated in the previous paragraph, the call letter for interview fell on lap of fourth respondent.

4. The petitioner was again sponsored by Employment Exchange in the year 2008 and was appointed as a Cook. In between 12 years had rolled out.

5. On a later point of time, the petitioner came to know that he lost his opportunity to gain valuable service and experience in the said appointment and also suffered monetary loss caused due to the mistake happened. Therefore, the petitioner has collected materials through Right to Information Act and made a representation on 04.06.2012, seeking at least to count the period, which he lost due to the mistake that had happened for the purpose of counting seniority in his employment. The petitioner was appointed on 18.11.2008 instead of getting appointment in the year 1996, which was given to the fifth respondent.

6. It is the request of the petitioner to the official respondents to count the period between 1996 and 2008 for the purpose of seniority and other benefits. The petitioner had submitted his representation on 04.06.2012, which is yet to be considered by the official respondents.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it would suffice to give a direction to the first and second respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated 04.06.2012.

8. Considering his request, a direction is issued to the first and second respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass orders in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //