R PALANI Vs. COLLECTOR THIRUVANNAMALAI THIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is working as Night Watchman from 1989 onwards and he has also been doing some additional work after the promotion of the earlier person. He has made representation to the 1st respondent on 11. 07. 2006 for regularisation of his services and the same has not been considered. Hence, the present writ petition is filed for a direction to the respondents to bring the petitioner into the regular establishment by appointing him in a permanent post and grant all consequential benefits.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Edwin Prabhakar, learned Government Advocate taking notice on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) EVEN though the prayer in the writ petition is to direct the respondents as stated above, the learned counsel for the petitioner would fairly submit that the petitioner will be satisfied if a direction is given to the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 11. 7. 2006 and pass appropriate orders.