Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mumminenni Sudheer Kumar, J
Chandrasekaran – Appellant
Versus
The Managing Director Head Office Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Chennai – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for promotion consideration (Para 4 , 5) |
| 2. judicial approach to representations (Para 6) |
| 3. time-bound directive for action (Para 7) |
O R D E R
Mr.G.Mohan Kumar, learned counsel, takes notice for the respondents.
2. With the consent of both sides, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
4. This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to notionally promote the petitioner as Junior Assistant with effect from the year 2012 and thereby, grant him consequential promotions and other monetary benefits by considering his representation dated 09.12.2025.
5. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he was entitled for promotion to the posts of Junior Assistant and Assistant long before, his case was not considered by the respondents at the relevant point of time. But, it was, only through proceedings dated 16.08.2024, he was granted notional promotion to the posts of Junior Assistant and Assistant belatedly. But, the same is also not on par with his immediate juniors. Hence, the petitioner claims to have
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
