VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Madras High Court 2023 › High Court of Madras

Dr.S.Sivaramakrishnan, v. The Registrar,

ALLOWED
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
2 June 2023
Bench
S Justice S.Srimathyauthor
Case no.
WP(MD) 13913/2018

Judgment

O R D E R This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order, dated

02.09.2016 and consequentially direct the respondent to step up the scale of pay of the petitioner on par with his junior.

¶2The claim of the petitioner is that the impugned order is a "one line order" without any reasons. Moreover, the order was passed without granting sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner is comparing himself with his juniors, namely Prem Kumar and Kalidasan. The petitioner claims that he is getting lesser salary and he claims to step up his pay on par with his juniors.

¶3Since the order is passed without opportunity to the petitioner, this Court is setting aside the impugned order and the respondent is directed to grant opportunity to the petitioner, if need be personal hearing and then pass speaking order. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

4.With the above said observation, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Index : Yes / No

02.06.2023 Internet : Yes NCC : Yes / No Tmg S.SRIMATHY, J Tmg

02.06.2023

Case details

Parties and counsel

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.06.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.12632 and 12633 of 2018 S.Sivaramakrishnan ... Petitioner vs. The Registrar, Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirappalli-620 024. ... Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the respondent in his proceedings Ref.No.00680/H2/2016, dated 02.09.2016 and to quash the same in so far as petitioner is concerned as illegal and consequentially, to direct the respondent to step up the scale of pay of the petitioner on par with his junior within the period that may be stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.H.Mohamed Imran for M/s.Ajmal Associates For Respondent : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan *****

Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.