AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners were appointed in the respondent Transport Corporation as Junior Assistant (Trainee) and Clerk on various dates and after periodical promotion they they were promoted as Superintendent and they also got retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. However, the petitioners were not provided with the surrender and encahsment of unearned leave on private affair for a period of 90 days. Therefore, the petitioners made representation to the respondents on 10.12.2016 and on 11.12.2016. Since their representations were not considered, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions.
The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that this Court in a batch of writ petitions in W.P(MD)Nos.223 of 2016, etc., [S.Venugopal Vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others, date 02.12.2016] has allowed the writ petitions, filed seeking the very same relief as sought for in these writ petitions and therefore, the learned Counsel prayed for allowing these writ petitions.
Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation submitted that the above order referred to by the learned Counsel for petitioners has been challenged before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A(MD)Nos.939 to 944 of 2017, etc., and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 27.03.2018 allowed the writ appeals by setting aside the order passed in the writ petitions and therefore, the writ petitioners are not entitled to get the relief as sought for in these writ petitions and therefore, the learned Standing Counsel prayed for dismissing these writ petitions.
Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.
It is seen from records that the Division Bench of this Court in the writ appeals filed against the order passed in S.Venugopal's case cited supra has allowed the writ appeals by setting aside the order passed by the learned single Judge. While being so, the petitioners cannot seek any relief citing the said order passed in the writ petitions as it has been set aside by the Division Bench. Therefore, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
In view of the above discussion, these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.