S.Sankar Ganesan vs The Commissioner Of Municipal ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8549 Mad

                                                                                   W.A(MD)No.367 of 2022


                                  BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                     DATED : 22.04.2022

                                                          CORAM:

                                    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
                                                       and
                                     THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

                                                 W.A(MD)No.367 of 2022
                                             and C.M.P.(MD) No.3730 of 2022



                S.Sankar Ganesan                                         .. Appellant/Petitioner


                                                            Vs




                The Commissioner of Municipal Administration,
                Chepauk,
                Chennai – 600 005.                            .. Respondent/Respondent


                PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against
                the order dated 23.03.2022 made in W.P.(MD) No. 21319 of 2021.


                                     For Appellant     : Mr.J.Barathan
                                     For Respondent    : Mr.K.Balasubramani
                                                         Special Government Pleader




                1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                       W.A(MD)No.367 of 2022




                                                           JUDGMENT

[Delivered by R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.]

The petitioner is working as a Manager in Aruppukottai

Municipality. By way of the impugned order dated 25.11.2021, he was

transferred to Virudhunagar Municipality. The said order was challenged

before learned Single Judge on the ground that the petitioner is a

differently-abled-person and the said transfer has been effected in the

middle of the academic year. The petitioner further contended that, he has

just completed eight months as Manager at Aruppukottai Municipality.

2. Learned Single Judge after considering the allegations raised

by the writ petitioner has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that,

transfer is an incident of service and has been transferred to a place just

25 kms away from the present posting. The said order is under challenge

in the writ appeal.

3. A perusal of the impugned order of transfer shows that, the

transfers have been effected on the request made by the Managers of the

Municipalities. This clause in the order is no where disputed in the writ

petition. Apart from that, in case, if the writ appeal is allowed, all other

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No.367 of 2022

transfers effected in the impugned order will get disturbed. However, none

of the parties to whom transfer orders have been issued have been

impleaded as parties in the present writ petition. That apart, the petitioner

has been transferred only to a very nearby place of 25 kms from where

he is working. We therefore find no error or irregularity in the order

passed by learned Single Judge.

4. For the above reasons, this writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

                                                                  [P.U., J]         [R.V., J]
                                                                           22.04.2022
                Index             : No
                pkn/3


                To

The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No.367 of 2022

PARESH UPADHYAY, J.

and R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

pkn

W.A(MD)No.367 of 2022

22.04.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis