Allowed

S.Kannan, v. the General Manager

Madras HC12 Mar 2013WP(MD)/3793/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction to consider his representation regarding unpaid leave salary, gratuity, and retirement benefits. The court held that the respondent need not wait for the outcome of a separate maintenance suit filed by the petitioner's wife. The writ was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 05.09.2012 and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

S.Kannan, Vs the General Manager — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 12/03/2013

¶4

C O R A M

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN

¶6

Writ Petition (MD) No.3793 of 2013

¶7

S.Kannan ...Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Kumbakonam Division, Kumbakonam Thanjavur District. ...Respondent

¶10

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 05.09.2012.

¶11

For petitioner ... Mr.G.Karnan For Respondent ... Mr.K.Sathiya Singh

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. By consent of both sides, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself.

¶13

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to consider his representation dated 05.09.2012 by the respondent. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent has to pay a sum of Rs.2,46,630/- towards leave salary, gratuity, compensation for voluntary retirement scheme and cess amount of Rs.27,000/- and despite the representation made on 31.12.2009, 05.09.2012, the respondents did not release those amount and therefore, the respondent may be directed to consider the representation.

¶14

Mr.K.Sathiya Singh, takes notice for the respondent and submitted that some amount has been paid and balance amount has to be paid to the petitioner and the petitioner's wife filed a maintenance suit and therefore, the amount was withheld by the respondent. He further submitted that in the suit the respondent is not a party.

¶15

When the respondent is not a party in the suit filed by the wife, there is no need for him to wait for the outcome of the maintenance suit. Hence, the respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 05.09.2012, and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶16

Sd/-

¶17

Deputy Registrar

¶18

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

¶19

Assistant Registrar

¶20

¶21

To The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Kumbakonam Division, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.

¶22

+1cc to Mr.K.Sathiya Singh, Advocate in SR.13417 +1cc to Mr.G.Karnan, Advocate in SR.13317 W.P.(MD) No.3793 of 2013 12.03.2013 rr. pbk 26/03/2013 ::2p-4c:

¶23

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

S.Kannan, v. the General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Kannan, v. the General Manager

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

C.Manikandan, Vs the Secretary to Govt.

M.Chellaiah, Vs the Secretary to Govt.

P. Rajapandi, Vs the Secretary to Govt.

M/S. Sunpak, Vs the Commissioner of Central

Dr.M.Balasubramanian, Vs the District Collector

R.Rajendran, Vs the Conseravator of Forest