SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Mad) 859

M.JAICHANDREN
R. Kamalakannan – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu represented by The Director of Agriculture, Chennai – Respondent


Appearing Advocates:
For the Petitioners:M. Gnanasekar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: S. Gopinathan, Additional Government Pleader.

Judgment :-

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. At this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had submitted that it would suffice, if the first respondent is directed to consider the claims of the petitioners for being regularised in service, taking into consideration the fact that they had been engaged by the third respondent and that they had rendered continuous service in the third respondent unit.

3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents has no objection for such an order being passed by this Court.

4. In such circumstances, the first respondent is directed to consider the claims of the petitioners, for being regularised in service in the third respondent unit and to pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top