Dismissed

N.K.Subbarayalu, v. the Chairman and Managing

Madras HC14 Mar 2014WA(MD)/402/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ appeal seeking terminal benefits (pension and gratuity). The appellant had been dismissed in 1988 without challenging the order; his representation for benefits was made only 20 years later. The court held that terminal benefits are not payable unless the dismissal order is set aside, and thus refused to interfere with the lower court's dismissal.

What did the court decide?

None. The writ appeal seeking direction to pay pension and gratuity was dismissed. No costs.

N.K.Subbarayalu, Vs the Chairman and Managing — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.03.2014 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI Writ Appeal (MD) No.402 of 2014 against W.P.(MD)No.14715 of 2011

¶3

N.K.Subbarayalu ... Appellant /Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Company Limited (TANGEDCO LIMITED) No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.

¶4

2.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Company Limited (TANGEDCO LIMITED) Tuticorin Electricity Distribution Circle, Nos.131 and 132, Ettayapuram Road, Tuticorin. ... Respondents/Respondent

¶5

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 22.12.2011 made in W.P.(MD)No.14715 of 2011 on the file of this Court.

¶6

Prayer in WP(MD). 14715/ 2011 :

¶7

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Mandamus, directing 1st and 2nd respondent to pass orders on petitioner respresentation dated 29.8.2009 and 13.2.2009 addressed to the 1st and 2nd respondent respectively and consequently direct them to pay the petitioner, pension and other terminal benefits with effect from 14.5.1998 to till date.

¶8

For Appellant : Mr.Anwar for Mr.E.Udhaya For Respondent : Mr.S.Dhayalan for EB

¶9

JUDGMENT

¶10

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J. )

¶11

The appellant has come up with the above writ appeal, challenging the dismissal of his writ petition seeking the benefit of pension and gratuity.

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.Heard Mr.Anwar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

¶13

¶14

3.The appellant was dismissed from service way back in the year 1988. On the ground that the order of dismissal was not served on him, the appellant, did not challenge it. However, after about 20 years, he made representations, for payment of terminal benefits. Since the representations were not considered, the appellant filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Judge by an order dated 22.12.2011. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before this Court.

¶15

4.As stated earlier, an order of dismissal was passed way back in 1988. It was never challenged. Even the representations seeking payment of terminal benefits were made only after 21 years in 2009. Terminal benefits are not payable unless the dismissal order is set aside. Since the dismissal order is not under challenge, the learned Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition. Hence, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Judge. Hence, the writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

¶16

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶17

/True Copy/

¶18

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶19

To. 1.The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Company Limited (TANGEDCO LIMITED) No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.

¶20

2.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Company Limited (TANGEDCO LIMITED) Tuticorin Electricity Distribution Circle, Nos.131 and 132, Ettayapuram Road, Tuticorin.

¶21

+1cc to Mr.Irulappan,Advocate in SR.No. 16532I. TS/26.03.2014/2P-4C

¶22

Writ Appeal (MD) No.402 of 2014 14.03.2014

¶23

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

N.K.Subbarayalu, v. the Chairman and Managing

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.K.Subbarayalu, v. the Chairman and Managing

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

Government of Tamil Nadu Vs P.Helen Cecil

The Principal Secretary to Vs a. Chakravarthy

The Manager Vs Chandrakumar

The Superintendent of Post Vs R.Sheela Rajarajan

C. Aruna Devi Vs the District Collector

Tvl. Hotel Ark International Vs the State of Tamil Nadu