Disposed

Rajamani, v. the Secretary to Governement

Madras HC7 Feb 2013WP(MD)/12483/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition for lack of jurisdiction, directing the petitioner to approach the non-impleaded Director of Pensions who holds the provident fund instead of the impleaded respondents.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to represent to Director of Pensions; Director of Pensions directed to look into the matter.

Rajamani, Vs the Secretary to Governement — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 07.02.2013

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM

¶6

WRIT PETITION (MD) No.12483 of 2011 Rajamani .. Petitioner Vs.

¶7

1.The Secretary to Government, Department of School Education, Government of TamilNadu, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai.

¶8

2.The Secretary to Government,

¶9

Department of Finance, Government of TamilNadu, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai.

¶10

3.The Auditing and Accountant General,

¶11

Office of the Auditing and Accountant General, Government of TamilNadu, Chennai – 18.

¶12

4.The Chief Educational Officer,

¶13

Office of the Chief Educational Officer, Virudhunagar District.

¶14

5.The Assistant Educational Officer,

¶15

Office of the Assistant Educational Officer,

¶16

Kariapatti, Virudhunagar District. .. Respondents

¶17

Prayer:- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to pay provident fund along with accrued interest payable to the petitioner by considering the representation preferred by the petitioner dated 04.08.2011.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani For RR 1,2,4 & 5 : Mr.B.Pugalenthi Special Government Pleader For R – 3 : Mr.A.Gunasekar

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents to consider the representation given by the petitioner on 04.08.2011 by way of issuing Writ of Mandamus.

¶21

It is stated in the petition that the petitioner is a retired Teacher and aged about 82. The concerned authorities have failed to disburse provident fund along with accrued interest. The petitioner has made successive representation to authorities concerned, but all his attempts have become futile. Under the said circumstances, the present https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Writ Petition has been filed for getting the relief sought for therein.

¶22

¶23

It is represented on the side of the respondents that the provident fund of the petitioner lies with the Director of Pensions and no representation has been made to him. Under the said circumstances, the impleadment of the present respondents are totally unwarranted for the purpose of giving efficacious relief to the petitioner and therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶24

From the representation made on the side of the respondents, it is learnt that the provident fund in question lies with the Director of Pensions and he is the disbursing authority and he has not been impleaded in the present petition, further no representation has been made to him. Under the said circumstances, the relief sought for therein cannot be granted. However, the following observations can be made.

¶25

In fine, this Writ Petition is disposed of on the basis of the observations made earlier. The petitioner is directed to give proper representation to the Director of Pensions and the Director of Pensions is directed to look into the same as early as possible.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶28

/True Copy/

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

¶31

1.The Secretary to Government, Department of School Education, Government of TamilNadu, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai.

¶32

2.The Secretary to Government, Department of Finance, Government of TamilNadu, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai.

¶33

3.The Auditing and Accountant General, Office of the Auditing

¶34

and Accountant General, Government of TamilNadu, Chennai – 18.

¶35

4.The Chief Educational Officer, Office of the Chief Educational Officer, Virudhunagar District.

¶36

5.The Assistant Educational Officer, Office of the Assistant Educational Officer, Kariapatti, Virudhunagar District.

¶37

+1C.C. to M/s.R.Alagumani, Advocate in Sr.No.5537 +1C.C. to the Special Government Pleader in Sr.No.6033 +1C.C. to M/s.P.Gunasekaran, Advocate in Sr.No.5498

¶38

W.P(MD)No.12483 of 2011 07.02.2013

¶39

ps PBK 20/02/2013 ::2P-9C::

¶40

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

Rajamani, v. the Secretary to Governement

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajamani, v. the Secretary to Governement

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

S.Mani Vs Venkateswari @ Kasthuri

Arumugam Vs Arunachalam

T.Arumugam Vs a.Arumugam

Tamil Nadu Arasu Pokkuvarathu Vs Tamil Nadu State Transport

D.G.A. Kennedy, Vs the Director

Rathinaraj, Vs the District Collector