1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 25.01.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN Writ Petition (MD).No.436 of 2011 & M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 P.Jeganathan . . Petitioner Vs. 1.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Dindigul Region, Collector Office Complex, Dindigul. 2.The Special Officer, A 1216, Dindigul Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society Limited, Dindigul. 3.The Management, Dindigul Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Co-operative Nagar, Trichy Road, Dindigul 624 005. .. Respondents Prayer:- Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to consider the representation given by the petitioner dated 13.12.2010 and proposal for his regularization. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Baalasundharam For Respondents: Mr.P.Thilakkumar for R1 & R2 Additional Government Pleader Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi for R3 ORDER By consent the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. 2. Heard Mr.K.Baalasundharam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Thilakkumar, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi learned counsel for the third respondent. 3. In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a direction to direct the first respondent to consider his representation, dated 13.12.2010 in respect of his proposal for regularization. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he joined the services of the second respondent as Assistant Salesman on 05.08.1998 and confirmed in that post with time scale of pay from 01.05.2001 by a resolution of the second respondent, dated 30.04.2001. While so, he was suddenly dismissed from service by an order dated 19.06.2001 on the ground that he was only a daily wage employee. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul, while considering the appeal of the petitioner under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of dismissal of the second respondent, dated 19.06.2001 and further directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service with full backwages. The second respondent filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.8997 of 2002 against the order of the appellate authority passed under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act and obtained an order of stay on 27.12.2001. Thereafter, a vacate stay petition was filed by the petitioner in WVMP No.775 of 2002 to vacate the stay and after hearing both parties, this Court was pleased to vacate the stay order and thereafter, the second respondent reinstated the petitioner in service, vide order dated 03.10.2003. While so, the second respondent was satisfied with the petitioner's work and required his service, due to reduction in staff strength, they withdrew the said writ petition and accordingly, W.P.No.8997 of 2002 was dismissed as withdrawn on 04.12.2009. 5. While that being so, the petitioner having been appointed on 05.08.1998 and completing more than 6 years of service in the second respondent, on the request made by him, a proposal has been sent to the first respondent on 18.12.2006 to regularise his service. But in view of the pendency of the writ petition, they could not do it. As the earlier writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 04.12.2009, there is no legal impediment to regularise the service of the petitioner. The proposal for regularization is still pending with the first respondent. Therefore, the petitioner sent a representation to the first respondent on 13.12.2010 to expedite the proposal and the same is pending consideration. Hence, this writ petition is filed by the petitioner. 6. At the outset, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, submits that the representation is of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 very recent origin and therefore, the petitioner cannot expect the first respondent to dispose of the same immediately. However, he is not opposing to direct the first respondent to dispose of the same within a reasonable time. 7. The learned counsel for the third respondent submits that the third respondent is only a formal party and they have no say in this matter. 8. In view of the above, as the petitioner has come out with a limited relief to direct the first respondent to consider the representation dated 13.12.2010, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the first respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 13.12.2010 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law and on merits, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. SD/- Deputy Registrar (Accounts) /True copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Dindigul Region, Collector Office Complex, Dindigul. 2.The Special Officer, A 1216, Dindigul Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society Limited, Dindigul. +1 CC TO MR. K. BALASUNDARAM, ADVOCATE S.R NO. 2862 +1 CC TO MR. D. SHANMUGARAJA SETHUPATHI, ADVOCATE S.R NO. 2957 +1 CC TO THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER S.R NO. 3012 Writ Petition (MD).No.436 of 2011 & MP.(MD).No.1 of 2011 25.01.2011 jikr PAM 28.01.2011/6C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/