Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its vs M.Ganesan on 5 September, 2023
W.A.No.3662 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.09.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.A.No.3662 of 2019 and
C.M.P.No.23322 of 2019
1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its
The Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration and Water
Supply Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director of Municipal Administration,
Ezhilagam, Chennai – 600 005. ... Appellants
Vs.
1.M.Ganesan
2.M.Natarajan
3.N.Prabakkaran
4.A.M.Kumar
5.C.Vaithyalingam
6.B.Maruthabalu
7.A.Balamurugan
8.T.Rammohan
9.M.Indirani
10.Salem Municipal Commissioner,
Rep. By its Commissioner,
Salem Corporation, Salem.
11.R.Venkatachalam
12.V.Dhanasekaran
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.A.No.3662 of 2019
13.R.Alamelu
14.M.Thangaraj
15.G.R.Krishnamoorthy ... Respondents
[RR 5 to 8 are impleaded as per order
dated 23.7.1997 in WMP.No.16872/1997]
Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, praying
to set aside the order dated 28.01.2005 in W.P.No.6635 of 1997.
For Appellant : Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar
Special Government Pleader
For Respondents : Mr.K.Sridhar
for M/s.K.Sridhar Associates
for R1, R4, R6, R8 and R9
: Ms.N.Devi for R10
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)
This writ appeal has been directed against the order of the Writ
Court dated 28.01.2005 made in W.P.No.6635 of 1997. The respondents
were the writ petitioners who were the employees of the Salem Municipal
Corporation.
2. With regard to certain service benefits that were denied by virtue
of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.237 Municipal Administration and Water
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.3662 of 2019
Supply Department dated 26.09.1996 and thereby such advantages had
been given to some other employees other than these respondents. Only
in that circumstances, the very G.O.Ms.No.237 itself was questioned by
these respondents in the said writ petition which was allowed by the
learned Judge through the impugned order dated 28.01.2005.
3. During the pendency of this writ appeal, the appellant had come
forward to issue G.O.(Ms).No.45 on 12.04.2023 whereby set of
guidelines have been issued under which the undue advantages that has
been extended in G.O.Ms.No.237 to some type of employees other than
these respondents since have been withdrawn, the benefits otherwise
ought to have been conferred on these respondents have been conferred
and the direction given by the learned Judge to give such service benefits
to these respondents also have been extended or complied and insofar as
these contesting respondents are concerned, most of them retired either
on superannuation or on voluntary retirement basis except one i.e.
respondent No.6 viz., B.Maruthabalu who would also get service benefits
as he is presently working as Administrative Officer.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.3662 of 2019
4. This position has not been controverted by the learned counsel
appearing for the contesting respondents.
5. In view of the aforestated position and the subsequent
developments that has been taken place during the pendency of this writ
appeal, the challenge that has been made against the impugned order
passed by the Writ Court in this appeal become otiose and hence no
further pursuasive action is required in this appeal as it almost has
become infructuous.
5. Recording the aforestated, this Writ Appeal is dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
[R.S.K., J.] [K.B., J.]
05.09.2023
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
Sgl
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.3662 of 2019
The Commissioner,
Salem Municipal Commissioner,
Salem Corporation, Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.3662 of 2019
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
Sgl
W.A.No.3662 of 2019
05.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
