IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.02.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W.P.NO.37434 of 2006 T.Navaneethan .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By the Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9. 2.The Director of Rural Development, 15, Jeens Road, Saidapet, Chennai – 15. 3.The Divisional Development Officer, Trichy. .. Respondents PRAYER : Original Application No.9632 of 1998 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus call for the records on the file of the third respondent in connection with the order passed by him in his proceedings O.Mu./3082/98 dated 03.07.1998 and quash the same and direct the respondents to regularise the service of the applicant with effect from the date of initial appointment with all monetary and service benefits. Since the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal was abolished, the O.A. was received by transfer and numbered as Writ Petition. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Singaravelan For Respondents : Mr.S.Sivashanmugam Government Advocate O R D E R Original Application No.9632 of 1998 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying to call for the records on the file of the third respondent in connection with the order passed by him in his proceedings O.Mu./3082/98 dated 03.07.1998 and quash https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the same and direct the respondents to regularise the service of the applicant with effect from the date of initial appointment with all monetary and service benefits. Since the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal was abolished, the O.A. was received by transfer and numbered as Writ Petition. 2.The petitioner was selected for appointment to the post of Power Pump Operator on merits and he joined service in the year 1971. Even after the lapse of 27 years from the date of the appointment, his service has not been regularised and his claim was also rejected, based on fivolous grounds. It is the case of the petitioner that several other persons of the same category have been regularised in the light of G.O.Ms.No.107 dated 5.2.1987 and the petitioner has been chosen for hostile discrimination. Learned counsel states that at this point of time the grievance of the petitioner could have been redressed if not he should be allowed to make a representation. Therefore, without going into the merits, if the petitioner has grievance as on today, the petitioner is entitled to make a representation to the competent authority setting out his plea of regularisation or for any other relief. Such representation shall be considered and disposed of on merits, within a reasonable period of time preferably within three months from the date of such representation. 3.The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar vsm To 1. The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9. 2. The Director of Rural Development, 15, Jeens Road, Saidapet, Chennai – 15. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The Divisional Development Officer, Trichy. 1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr.No.7338 1 cc to Mr.R.Singgaravelan, Advocate, Sr.No.7203 W.P. NO.37434 of 2006 SGL {CO} TP/2.3.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/