Allowed

M.Rajasekharan, v. the Principal Secretary to -

Madras HC20 Nov 2013WP(MD)/16714/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retired officer whose pension was pending settlement, approached the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking directions to the government officials to expedite the forwarding and processing of his pension proposals by the District Collector.

What did the court decide?

The third respondent to submit the pension proposal to the second respondent within four weeks. The second respondent to forward the proposal to the Accountant General, Chennai, within eight weeks the

M.Rajasekharan, Vs the Principal Secretary to - — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.11.2013

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU W.P.(MD)No.16714 of 2013

M.Rajasekharan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶9

2.The Additional Chief Secretary and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

¶10

3.The District Collector, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin. ... Respondents

¶11

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to send pension proposals of the petitioner to the Accountant General, Chennai, based on the orders in G.O.(D)No.413, Revenue (Ser 2(2)) Department, dated 01.08.2013 and G.O.(D)No.264, Revenue (Ser 2(2)) Department, dated 08.08.2013, within a specified time frame that may be fixed by this Court.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Visvalingam For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohidheen, Additional Government Pleader

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner was formally working as Additional Personal Assistant (Lands) to the District Collector, Tuticorin. His date of retirement on attaining the age of superannuation fell on 30.04.2010. But he was not allowed to retire and he was also placed under suspension as per G.O. (2D)No.259, Revenue (Ser-2(2)) Department, dated 30.04.2010. A charge memorandum was issued to him under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, by the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chennai, as per Memo No.Ser-2(4) 46550/09-2 dated 22.04.2010. But there was no progress in the said disciplinary proceedings. However, the respondents passed an order of punishment of recovery of a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month for a period of two years and accordingly, G.O.(D)No.264, Revenue (Ser 2(2)) Department, dated 08.08.2013 was issued. Thereafter, the petitioner was allowed to retire from service with effect from 30.04.2010 and the order of punishment was revoked. Accordingly, the petitioner retired from https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ service with effect from 30.04.2010. Even then, his pension has not been settled, is his grievance. Therefore, he has come up with this writ petition seeking a direction to the District Collector, Tuticorin to

¶15

¶16

forward the proposals to the Accountant General, Chennai for sanction of pension.

¶17

2.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and also perused the records carefully.

¶18

3.The learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that he has been instructed to state that already the pension proposal has been submitted by the District Collector, Tuticorin District on 08.11.2013 to the second respondent. He would further state that the second respondent shall duly forward the same to the Accountant General, Chennai. The said statement is recorded.

¶19

4.In view of the said statement made by the learned Additional Government Pleader, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms:

¶20

1)If the proposal has been either returned or not despatched by the third respondent, the third respondent shall submit the same to the second respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

2)If the proposal has already been received by the second respondent, or it is received within four weeks as directed in this order in Clause-1 above, the second respondent shall consider the same and forward the proposal to the Accountant General, Chennai, within a further period of eight weeks thereafter.

¶22

5.This Court has not expressed any opinion as to whether the petitioner is entitled for any pension. It is absolutely for the second respondent to decide the matter in accordance with law.

¶23

6.However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

/TRUE COPY/

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

1.The Principal Secretary to Government,

¶30

Revenue Department,Secretariat,Chennai-600 009.

¶31

2.The Additional Chief Secretary and Commissioner of Revenue Administration,

¶32

Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

¶33

3.The District Collector,

¶34

Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.

¶35

+1cc to Mr.S.Visvalingam, Advocate SR.No.56750

¶36

+1cc to Special Govt.Pleader SR.No.56986

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.(MD)No.16714 of 2013 20.11.2013

¶39

¶40

PA/26.11.2013/2P/6C

M.Rajasekharan, v. the Principal Secretary to -

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Rajasekharan, v. the Principal Secretary to -

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

K. Logarajeswaran, Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

H.Umarsha, Vs the Director

S. Rajkumar Vs the Registrar

S.Raman, Vs the Principal Secretary to

S.Ramanujam, Vs Govt. of Tamilnadu

Sri Renganathan Vs the Secretary to Government