Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T. ASHA, J
K.Rajendran – Appellant
Versus
The Superintending Engineer TNPDCL/then (TANGEDCO) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's request for leave encashment. (Para 2) |
| 2. counsel hearings and submissions. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's directive for consideration. (Para 4) |
| 4. conclusion and final order. (Para 5) |
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 13.10.2025.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had made a representation dated 13.10.2025 to the respondent requesting the sanction and disbursement of the petitioner’s Earned Leave encashment and Earned Leave on private affairs encashment, but, the same has not yet been disposed of by the respondent. Hence, the petitioner is constrained to file the present Writ Petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made on either side, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, directs the respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 13.10.2025 for the sanction and disbursement of the petitioner’s Earned Leave encashment and Ear
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
