Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 786 (MAD)

A. Muthusamy v. The Secretary to Government Rural Development Department, Chennai

2010-02-23

M.JAICHANDREN

body2010
Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the Government of Tamil Nadu had passed an order, in G.O.(Ms)No.62, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (TP) Department, dated, 18.04.2009, according to which the petitioner has been given the seniority. The learned counsel for the petitioner had further submitted that the petitioner should be considered by the respondents, for being promoted to the post of Assistant Director, Town Panchayat and the consequential benefits should also be given to him. 3. In view of such submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to make an appropriate representation to the respondent, relating to his request, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, and on such representation being submitted, the respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks thereafter. However, it is made clear that this Court, by this order, has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. 4. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.