IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated 9.6.2008 Coram: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.CHANDRU W.P. No. 6419 of 1998 T. Sridharanarayanan .. Petitioner vs. 1. The Chairman Chennai Port Trust Chennai 2. The Chief Inspector of Factories Chepauk, Chennai – 5 3. The Deputy Director (Safety) Inspectorate of Dock Safety Chennia – 8 4. Government of India Rep. by its Secretary Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways Sansad Marg New Delhi .. Respondents (R4 impleaded as per order dt.3.4.07 in M.P.17084/06 in W.P.6419/98) Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent in S1/12193/97/s dated 08.01.1998 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to fix his pay and allowances corresponding to the post of safety officer in the cadre of Senior Executive from 04.6.1994 till 31.01.1998 the date of his retirement and pay the difference of pay, allowances and consequential benefits. For Petitioner : Mr. P.H. Manoj Pandian For Respondent 1 : Mr. M. Jagadeesan For Respondents 2&3 : Mr. P. Muthukumar, GA O R D E R Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The petitioner was working as a Safety Officer in the Chennai Port Trust from 04.6.1994 till 31.01.1998, ie., the date of his retirement. His appointment was recorded with the office of Chief Inspector of Factories as well as with the Inspectorate of Dock Safety, Chennai. According to the petitioner, there was only one post of Safety Officer in the Port Trust at Chennai and yet, he was not given the status of a Senior Executive, which should have been given at the time of his appointment. It is stated that under Rule 3(b) in Schedule III of the Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Regulations 1990, there is only one Safety Officer and he will be given the status a Senior Executive. Though several representations were given and his request was also acknowledged by the respondents 2 and 3 vide their letters dated 15.6.1996 and 02.4.1996 but they were not considered. He filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P. No. 18194 of 1997 and this Court, by an order dated 09.12.1997, directed the respondents to consider his representations. The respondents refused to consider the said representations and held that he was not eligible for the Senior Executive level. It is against this proceedings, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Though several contentions were raised before this Court, it is now made clear that the petitioner had retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served in deciding this matter and no relief can be granted even if the petitioner succeeds in his effort to get Senior Executive status on the ground that he was the only Safety Officer employed by the Port Trust since the writ petition has become infructuous. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed as infructuous. However, there will be no order as to costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. gri To 1. The Chairman Chennai Port Trust,Chennai 2. The Chief Inspector of Factories Chepauk, Chennai – 5 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The Deputy Director (Safety) Inspectorate of Dock Safety Chennia – 8 4. The Secretary Government of India Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways Sansad Marg New Delhi + 1 CC to the Government Pleader SR NO 27798 + 1 CC To Mr.M.Jagadeesan, Advocate SR NOs.27863 + 2 CCs To Mr.P.H.Manoj Pandian, Advocate SR Nos.27633, 22970 Order in W.P. No. 6419 of 1998 CK(CO) SRA(13/06/2008) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/