Disposed

R. Ramalingam v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC22 Sept 2011WP(MD)/10796/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court issued a direction to the Chief Engineer of Highways and Rural Works to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.02.2011 regarding pensionary benefits earned by counting service as a Road Inspector, directing the Accountant General to sanction if entitled, within two months without deciding merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Chief Engineer to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders within two months; direction to the Accountant General to sanction if the petitioner is entitled.

R. Ramalingam Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 22.09.2011

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.10796 of 2011 and

¶7

M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011

¶8

R.Ramalingam : Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The State of Tamil Nadu,

¶11

Rep. by the Secretary to Government,

¶12

Highways & Rural Works Department, Secretariat,

¶13

Chennai-9.

¶14

2.The Chief Engineer, (Highways &Rural Works), Chepauk,

¶15

Chennai-5.

¶16

3.The Accountant General,

¶17

Chennai-18.

¶18

: Respondents

¶19

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay all the service and monetary benefits by counting the petitioner's service in the post of Road Inspector from 07.09.1980 till the date of his retirement and accordingly, pay all the pensionary benefits, with 18% interest per annum with cost.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Singgaravelan

¶21

For Respondents 1&2 : Mr.B.Pugalendhi

¶22

Special Government Pleader

¶23

For Respondent No.3 : Mr.P.Gunasekaran

¶24

ORDER

¶25

**********

¶26

Though the petitioner has sought for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay all the service and monetary benefits by counting his service in the post of Road Inspector from 07.09.1980 till the date on which he retired i.e., till 30.11.2009, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.406, Transport Department, dated 23.02.1987, Mr.R.Singgaravelan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it would be suffice, if a direction is issued to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.02.2011. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is placed on record.

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Considering the limited request, Mr.B.Pugalendhi, learned Special Government Pleader was put on notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. He submitted that the representation of the petitioner dated

¶28

¶29

28.02.2011 would be disposed of and prayed for sufficient time.

¶30

Mr.P.Gunasekaran, leaned counsel, who took notice on behalf of the third respondent, submitted that as and when proposals are received from the second respondent, the request of the petitioner for revised pension would be considered.

¶31

In the light of the above submissions and without going into the merits of the case, as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefits, as per the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.406, Transport Department, dated 23.02.1987, a direction is issued to the Chief Engineer, (Highways & Rural Works), Chepauk, Chennai-5, the second respondent herein, to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 28.02.2011, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner is entitled to the benefits, suitable proposals may be directed to be sent by the competent authority to the Accountant General, Chennai-18, the third respondent herein, who shall issue appropriate sanction orders.

¶32

With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶33

SML

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

Assistant Registrar[T&P]

¶36

/True copy/

¶37

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶38

¶39

1.The Secretary to Government, Highways & Rural Works Department, Secretariat,

¶40

Chennai-9.

¶41

2.The Chief Engineer, (Highways &Rural Works), Chepauk, Chennai-5.

¶42

3.The Accountant General,

¶43

Chennai-18.

¶44

1 cc to M/s.P.Gunasekaran, Advocate SR.No.32806.

¶45

+1 cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No.32894.

¶46

Order made in W.P.(MD).No.10796 of 2011

¶47

Dated:22.09.2011

¶48

2P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶49

RPB 26.09.2011

R. Ramalingam v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Ramalingam v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V. Ramaraj, S/O.Vellaiyan, Vs the General Manager

Mrs.R. Kavitha Vs the Director of Elementary

C. Shobana, Vs the Director

T. Ganapathy Vs the Director

Dr. v.Swamenathan, Vs the Regional Transport

M. Nedunchelian, Vs the Director of Treasuries and