Allowed

The State Rep by the District v. P.Radhakrishnan

Madras HC5 Sept 2011WA(MD)/827/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ appeal, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court set aside an order that delayed retirement benefits. The Court held the department could continue disciplinary proceedings under Rule 60 but must disburse benefits immediately.

What did the court decide?

The appeal allowed, order dated 16.07.2010 set aside, department directed to disburse retirement benefits within four weeks while proceeding with disciplinary action.

The State Rep by the District Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 05.09.2011

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

¶7

W.A.(MD).No.827 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011

¶8

The State, Rep by The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

¶9

: Appellant(Respondent)

¶10

Vs.

¶11

P.Radhakrishnan : Respondent(Petitioner)

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 16.07.2010 made in W.P.(MD).No.9122 of 2010 on the file of this Court presented to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order issued by the respondent in Na.Ka. m6/25974/2010 dated 31.5.2010 and quash the portion relating to condition stipulated for disciplinary action after retirement alone and consequently direct the respondent to make all retirement benefits to the petitioner with a specified time.

¶13

For Appellant : Mr.Mr.K.Mahendran Special Government Pleader For Respondent : Mr.S.Muthal Raj

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

[Judgment of the Court was delivered BY P.JYOTHIMANI, J]

¶16

The Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.07.2010 made in W.P.(MD).No.9122 of 2010.

¶17

The respondent/Writ Petitioner, on the date of attaining the age of superannuation, was permitted to retire from service, without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings pending against him.

¶18

Admittedly, the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent/Writ Petitioner was instituted and after allowing him to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ retire, the charges were served. Therefore, by virtue of a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Y.Raja Vs. The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Madurai Region, Madurai reported in 2011

¶19

¶20

(1) CTC 18 , the department is entitled to proceed under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules [for short "the Rule"]. It is also relevant to point out in this case that even under Rule 9 (2) (a) of the Rules, which is as follows:

¶21

"9.Right of Government to withhold or withdraw pension-

¶22

(2)(a)The departmental proceeding referred to in sub rule (1), if instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re employment, shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service."

¶23

in relation to the proceedings, which are instituted, the authority has got a right to complete the proceedings.

¶24

In such view of the matter, the order dated 16.07.2010 made in W.P.(MD).No.9122 of 2010 stands set aside and the Writ Appeal stands allowed to the effect that the appellant is entitled to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent/Writ Petitioner concerned under Rule 60 of the Rules. Making it clear that pending such disciplinary proceedings, the appellant shall disburse all the retirement benefits to the respondent/Writ Petitioner including provisional pension in accordance with Rule 60 of the Rules within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶27

/True Copy/

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

¶30

The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

¶31

+1cc to Mr.S.Muthalraj, Advocate, Sr.No.29900

¶32

ssk/13.09.2011 /3c -2p/-

¶33

JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A.(MD).No.827 of 2011

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶35

05.09.2011

The State Rep by the District v. P.Radhakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State Rep by the District v. P.Radhakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ayyappan, S/O.Subarathinam, Vs the Commissioner

S.Venkateshwaran Vs the District Collector

V. Koolu Servai, Vs the District Collector

V.Ganesan Vs the District Collector

Tony Abraham Vs the Superintending Engineer

P.Chellamuthu Vs the Commissioner