IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.02.2010 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR W.P.No. 39918 of 2006 1 K. SINGARAJ ... PETITIONER Vs 1 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, CHEPAUK, CHENNAI – 5. 2 THE JOINT TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER (A) CHEPAUK, CHENNAI -5 3 THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, COIMBATORE 4 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, UDHAGAMANDALAM ... RESPONDENTS Prayer Original Application No. 5860 of 1999 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench to issue a direction to this O.A. is for a direction to the Ist and 2nd respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the panel for promotion to the post of Assistant for the year 1998 on par with his juniors with all consequential service and monetary benefits on the date on which the petitioner's juniors have been promoted. Since the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal was abolished, the O.A. was re-transferred and numbered as Writ petition. For Petitioner .. Mr. K.H. Ravikumar For Respondents .. Mr.S.Sivashanmugam, Government Advocate ORDER Original Application No. 5860 of 1999 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench to issue a direction to this O.A. is for a direction to the Ist and 2nd respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the panel for promotion to the post of Assistant for the year 1998 on par with his juniors with all https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ consequential service and monetary benefits on the date on which the petitioner's juniors have been promoted. Since the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal was abolished, the O.A. was transferred and numbered as Writ petition. 2. The petitioner has filed a original application in the year 1999, seeking the aforesaid relief. The petitioner prays for inclusion of his name in the panel for promotion to the post of Assistant for the year 1998. The non inclusion according to the petitioner was on account of currency of a punishment. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner now states that the punishment imposed has been set aside by the appellate authority namely the Transport Commissioner – 1st respondent and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to consequential benefits. In this regard, an appeal has been filed before the first respondent on 31.08.1999. The learned counsel for the petitioner pleads that the appeal may be disposed of on merits. 4. Heard. Mr. S. Sivashanmugam, Government Advocate, In view of the facts as stated above the first respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner on merits within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Sd/ Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar sms To THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, CHEPAUK, CHENNAI – 5. 2 THE JOINT TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER (A) CHEPAUK, CHENNAI -5 3 THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, COIMBATORE https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, UDHAGAMANDALAM + One CC to Mr.K.H.Ravikumar Sr.10570 + One CC to Government Pleader Sr.11034 W.P.No. 39918 of 2006 MRD (CO) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/