1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.07.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH W.A.(MD)No.643 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2011 The President, Thoothoor Village Panchayat, Chinnathurai, Thoothoor Post, Kanyakumari District. .. Appellant/4th Respondent Vs. 1.P.Nirmal Nesakumar .. Respondent/Petitioner 2.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil. 3.The Assistant Director of Panchayat, Kanyakumari District collectorate, Nagercoil. 4.The Block Development Officer, Munchirai Panchayat Union, Pudukadai Post, Kanyakumari District. .. Respondents Nos.1 to 3/ Respondents Nos.1 to 3 Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of this Court dated 15.3.2011 made in W.P.(MD) No.2996 of 2011. Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.2996 of 2011: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 4.2.11, based on the recommendation made by the 3rd Respondent in Letter Na.Ka.A8/14504/04, dated 13.4.10 and in Letter A8/1504/2004 dated 11.6.2010 and pass orders within a stipulated time. For appellant : Mr.C.K.M.Appaji For 1st respondent : Mr.S.S.Sundar for M/s.M.Saravana Kumar For respondents 2 to 4: Mr.K.Mahendran, Special Govt.Pleader https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J) This Writ Appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the order dated 15.3.2011 passed in W.P.(MD)No.2996 of 2011, by which a direction was issued to the second and third respondents herein to consider the representation of the petitioner/first respondent herein dated 04.02.2011, based on the recommendation made by the fourth respondent herein dated 13.04.2010 and the letter dated 11.06.2010 and to pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order passed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there is a pending proceeding against the first respondent/writ petitioner and therefore, in view of the same, he is not entitled for the payment of backwages. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/writ petitioner submitted that the appellant went on depriving of backwages due to the writ petitioner. The order passed by this Hon'ble Court in setting aside the order of dismissal passed against the first respondent/writ petitioner has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench. The appellant has given undertaking in the Contempt Petition initiated against him to the effect that the first respondent herein would be reinstated and the amount due will be paid in installments. Hence, it is expected that it is not open to the appellant to raise any objection and go back on the statement made by him before this Court. 4. Considering the scope of the order passed by this Court and the prayer sought for in the Writ Petition, we are of the considered view that it is not necessary to go into the facts involved in the present appeal. The learned single Judge has merely directed the second respondent herein to dispose of the representation of the first respondent/writ petitioner on merits and in accordance with law, of course, by taking into consideration the recommendation of the the fourth respondent dated 13.04.2010 and the letter dated 11.06.2010. The question of entitlement of the first respondent/writ petitioner will have to be decided by the second respondent who is the competent authority. Of course, while considering the same, the appellant being the President, is also entitled to have his say. 5. Therefore, while confirming the order of the learned single Judge, we modify the order dated 15.3.2011 passed in W.P.(MD)No.2996 of 2011 by permitting the appellant to place his objection before the second respondent. The second respondent, while considering the representation of the first respondent dated 4.2.2011, will have to consider the objection of the appellant and also pass appropriate orders within a period eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 of this order. The appellant is given two weeks' time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to place his objection before the second respondent. The Writ Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (T&P) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil. 2.The Assistant Director of Panchayat, Kanyakumari District collectorate, Nagercoil. 3.The Block Development Officer, Munchirai Panchayat Union, Pudukadai Post, Kanyakumari District. +1 CC to Mr.C.K.M.Appaji, Advocate (SR.No.23201) W.A.(MD)No.643 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2011 15.7.2011 asvm NSV/1.8.11/3P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/