Skip to content


Petitioner Vs. Respondent - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberW.P (MD).No.15590 of 2016
Judge
AppellantPetitioner
RespondentRespondent
Excerpt:
.....in the divisional excise office, theni, which involves collection of money, however, by impugned order dated 10.08.2016, the petitioner has been transferred and posted at the office of the special tahsildar, sibcot unit 3, bodinayakkanur at theni, which is having a full time desk work. 2. in view of the difficulty expressed by the petitioner, the learned govt. advocate is directed to get specific instruction whether the petitioner could be accommodated in a post which is having no desk work. 3. post the matter on 06.09.2016.
Judgment:

T. Raja, J.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier when the petitioner filed W.P.No.4570 of 2006 for alternative employment, this Court, by an order dated 31.07.2006, directed the respondents not to assign seat work to the petitioner, due to his mental illness. Pursuant to the orders of this court, the petitioner was posted as Assistant in the Divisional Excise Office, Theni, which involves collection of money, however, by impugned order dated 10.08.2016, the petitioner has been transferred and posted at the office of the Special Tahsildar, SIBCOT Unit 3, Bodinayakkanur at Theni, which is having a full time desk work.

2. In view of the difficulty expressed by the petitioner, the learned Govt. Advocate is directed to get specific instruction whether the petitioner could be accommodated in a post which is having no desk work.

3. Post the matter on 06.09.2016.


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