Disposed

K.Sambandam, v. the Secretary to Govt. of

Madras HC6 Aug 2013WP/10026/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court directed the second respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation regarding retirement benefits on merits within eight weeks. The writ petition was subsequently disposed of with no costs awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to dispose of the representation dated 16.12.2010 on merits within eight weeks. Writ petition and connected petitions disposed of with no costs.

K.Sambandam, Vs the Secretary to Govt. of — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 06.08.2013

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN

¶5

Writ Petition No.10026 of 2012 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2012 & M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶6

K.Sambandam ... Petitioner Versus.

¶7

The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Public Works Department Fort St. George Chennai – 9. 2. The Chief Engineer (General) Public Works Department Chepauk, Chennai – 5. 3. The Executive Engineer, PWD Building Construction and Maintenance Division, Tirunelveli – 627 002. 4. The Accountant General Office of the Principal Accountant General (A& E) Tamil Nadu Teynampet Chennai – 600 018. ... Respondents

¶8

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to sanction and disburse of all the retirement benefits, namely, gratuity, provident fund, pension etc., for the service rendered as Supervisor to the petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.1996 within a reasonable time.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Kasinatha Bharathi For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.P.Karthikeyan Government Advocate

¶10

For Respondent No.4 : Mrs.Hema Murali Krishnan

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

Heard Mr.V.Kasinatha Bharathi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf the petitioner, Mr.P.Karthikeyan, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the

¶13

respondents 1 to 3, and Mrs.Hema Murali Krishnan, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent.

¶14

Though the prayer sought by the petitioner in the present writ petition is for a larger relief, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the representation of the petitioner, dated 16.12.2010, sent to the second respondent, is directed to be disposed of, on merits, within a specified period.

¶15

The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents, have no objection for such an order being passed by this Court.

¶16

Considering the above submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the second respondent is directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated 16.12.2010, on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the parties concerned, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to furnish to the second respondent a copy of the representation, dated 16.12.2010, along with a copy of this order.

¶17

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar
/True Copy/
Sub Asst.Registrar
kb
To
1. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu
Public Works Department
Fort St. George
Chennai – 9.
2. The Chief Engineer (General)
Public Works Department
Chepauk, Chennai – 5.
3. The Executive Engineer, PWD
Building Construction and Maintenance
Division, Tirunelveli – 627 002.

¶18

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

¶19

The Accountant General Office of the Principal Accountant General (A& E) Tamil Nadu Teynampet Chennai – 600 018.

¶20

+1cc to Mr.V.Kasinatha Bharathi, Advocate Sr 42171

¶21

PUR(CO) km/12.8.

¶22

W.P.No.10026 of 2012

¶23

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

K.Sambandam, v. the Secretary to Govt. of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sambandam, v. the Secretary to Govt. of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pollachi Municipal Employees Vs State of Tamil Nadu

H.Akthar Jan, Vs the Inspector General of

R.Amuthavalli Vs the District Collector

N. Jayakumar Vs the Managing Director

S. Sivasubramaniam, Vs Tamilnadu Agricultural

R.Vaithiyanathan, Vs Director of School Education