D.Maragathamani v. The Commissioner of Social Defence,Chennai – 10
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. The Government for the reasons best known to them accepted herrequest and demoted the petitioner to the original post of Matron GradeIII. The period of interregnum was also regulated by G.O.(2D) No. 34,Social Welfare and Noon Meal Department dated 12.4.2007. It wasthereafter the petitioner…
- Para 66. The writ petition is misconceived and accordingly the same isdismissed. No costs.slSd/-Asst. Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst. RegistrarToThe Commissioner of Social Defence, Chennai – 10.+1 cc to The Government Pleader Sr.No.63924.KM(CO)dcp/29.10W.P.No.33621/2007
Judgment
In the High Court of Judicature at MadrasDated: 23.10.2007CoramThe Honourable Mr.JUSTICE CHANDRUWrit Petition No.33621 of 2007D.Maragathamani.... PetitionerVs.The Commissioner of Social Defence, Chennai – 10..... RespondentPETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying forthe issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to transfer thepetitioner from Salem to Chennai and dispose of the petitioner'srepresentation dated 10.07.2007.For Petitioner : Mr.S.IlamvaludhiO R D E RThe petitioner was originally employed as a Record Clerk. She didnot come for work for more than a year. Hence, she was removed fromservice by an order dated 12.7.1995.
Thereafter, she filed an appeal and the same was rejected by the Government after consulting the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. However, the petitioner once again appealed to the Government for re-considering the decision.
The Government for the reasons best known to them accepted herrequest and demoted the petitioner to the original post of Matron GradeIII. The period of interregnum was also regulated by G.O.(2D) No. 34,Social Welfare and Noon Meal Department dated 12.4.2007. It wasthereafter the petitioner by an order dated 4.7.2007 was posted to work asthird grade Matron at the Salem Government Vigilance Home.
The petitioner in the present writ petition seeks for a re-transfer to some other home at Chennai on the ground that her family is at Chennai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
The petitioner had the benefit of Government's indulgence ofgetting re-instatement despite having lost her appeal earlier. Thegrounds raised for re-transfer to Chennai cannot be granted as a matter ofright. It is for the Government to post the petitioner at the appropriateplace especially after allowing her mercy petition.
The writ petition is misconceived and accordingly the same isdismissed. No costs.slSd/-Asst. Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst. RegistrarToThe Commissioner of Social Defence, Chennai – 10.+1 cc to The Government Pleader Sr.No.63924.KM(CO)dcp/29.10W.P.No.33621/2007
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.