N.Thiruneerselvam v. Tamil Nadu Generatiohn and

O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶2This Writ Petition is filed assailing the action of the first respondent in issuing proceeding dated 14.11.2019 bearing Memo No. 088411/712/G59/G.591/2019, whereby, the petitioner was transferred, which action it is contended as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law.

¶3This Court, by interim order dated 30.12.2019, had stayed the operation of the impugned proceedings.

¶4Today, when the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that subsequent to the petitioner approaching this Court assailing the action of the respondents in transferring him, the petitioner was involved in a Vigilance case, pursuant which he was placed under suspension and the case under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, has been registered.

¶5The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that thereafter, the Authority had decided not to proceed under the Prevention of Corruption Act and decided to initiate disciplinary action and the petitioner was awarded punishment of stoppage of increment without cumulative effect.

¶6The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the petitioner had subsequently joined at Ponneri, to which place he was posted and he is discharging duties in the new place on posting.

¶7The learned Standing Counsel thus submits that since, the petitioner had subsequently joined at his new place of posting, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration and thus, the Writ Petition has become infructuous.

¶8On the aforesaid submission being made by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid submission made to this Court on behalf of the respondents may be placed on record and writ petition be closed.

¶9In view of the aforesaid submission, placing on record the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner is now appointed at Ponneri and is discharging his duties thereat, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is closed as infructuous. No costs.

25.10.2025 Speaking order / Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No : Yes / No dh To

¶1Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Represented by its Chief Engineer/Personnel No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶2The Superintending Engineer/North/Chennai Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle North Ground Floor, 5B Block, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶3Assistant Engineer (O & M)/ Rural Gummidipoondi Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Gummidipoondi Tiruvallur District – 601 201.

¶4The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Thiruvannamalai Electricity Distribution Circle, Thiruvannamalai. T. VINOD KUMAR

, J.

dh W.P.No.35821 of 2025

25.10.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 25.10.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR N.Thiruneerselvam ... Petitioner vs 1. Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Represented by its Chief Engineer/Personnel No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. 2. The Superintending Engineer/North/Chennai Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle North Ground Floor, 5B Block, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. 3. Assistant Engineer (O & M)/ Rural Gummidipoondi Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Gummidipoondi Tiruvallur District – 601 201. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Thiruvannamalai Electricity Distribution Circle, Thiruvannamalai. … Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Cetriorarified Mandamus, after calling for the concern records from the first respondent, quash the order of the first respondent dated 14.11.2019 bearing Memo No.088411/712/G59/G.591/2019 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents to retain the petitioner in the office of third respondent and pass orders. For Petitioner : Mr.Balan Haridas For Respondents : Mr.R.Nikkhikesh Athav for Mr.K.Rajkumar Standing Counsel