Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2619 (MAD)

M. Thaiyal Nayagi v. State of Tamilnadu, rep. by its Secretary Rural Development Department

2012-06-22

M.JAICHANDREN

body2012
Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels 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 it would suffice, if the third respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 13.2.2009, with regard to the relief of seeking regularisation and pensionary benefits, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period. 3. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents have no objection for such an order being passed by this Court. 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, the third respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 13.2.2009, with regard to the relief of seeking regularisation and pensionary benefits, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, not later than twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of the representation, dated 13.2.2009, to the third respondent, along with a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that this Court, by this order, has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with the above directions. No costs.