Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

D.ANBALAGAN versus COMMISSIONER

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


D.Anbalagan v. Commissioner - W.A. No.526 of 2005 [2007] RD-TN 1310 (5 April 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS



Dated : 05.04.2007

Coram

The Honourable Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM

and

The Honourable Mr. Justice S. TAMILVANAN

W.A. No.526 of 2005

and

W.A.M.P. No.972 of 2005

D. Anbalagan ... Appellant Vs

1. The Commissioner,

Tirupathur Municipality,

Vellore District.

2. Thiru. K. Muthusellam,

Commissioner,

Tirupathur Municipality,

Vellore District. ... Respondents Appeal to set aside the order dated 21.12.2004 passed in W.P. No.29893 of 2004 on the file of this Court. For Appellant : Mr. V. Raghavachari For Respondents : Mr. P. Subramanian, Govt. Pleader JUDGMENT



(Judgment was delivered by P. SATHASIVAM, J.)

The above writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.12.2004 made in W.P. No.29893 of 2004, in and by which, learned Judge, after finding no merit in the claim of the writ petitioner, dismissed his writ petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as respondents.

3. By way of impugned proceedings dated 8.10.2004, the appellant herein along with two others were posted to Eklaspuram pumping station at Tirupattur Municipality. The order further shows that in order to avoid complaints from the public and to carry on with the pumping work to provide water to the public in Tirupattur Municipality, the Commissioner passed the said proceedings.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, by drawing our attention to initial appointment order viz. the appellant herein was appointed as Helper for maintenance of street lights in Tirupathur Municipality, contended that the Commissioner is not justified in asking him to attend the work relating to pumping station. We are unable to accept the said contention. It is not in dispute that he was one of the employees of Tirupathur Municipality. Depending upon the contingencies, the Commissioner is free to depute the persons working in his control for other work. It is not the case of the appellant that he was asked to go outside the jurisdiction of Tirupathur Municipality.

5. Accordingly, we are unable to find any error or infirmity in the proceedings of the Commissioner, Tirupathur Municipality dated 8.10.2004. Learned Judge is perfectly right in dismissing the writ petition. Consequently, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has brought to our notice that by proceedings dated 7.2.2005, the other two persons P. Baskaran and K. Rajarajan were retransferred and asked to look after the street lights and the appellant Anbalagan alone is retained in the present pumping station. If that is so, it is for the appellant to make a representation to the Commissioner and if the same is permissible/warranted, the Commissioner is free to take appropriate decision.

7. With the above observations, the writ appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the connected W.A.M.P. is also dismissed. No costs. ssa.

To

1. The Commissioner,

Tirupathur Municipality,

Vellore District.

2. Thiru. K. Muthusellam,

Commissioner,

Tirupathur Municipality,

Vellore District.

[PRV/10177]


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.