Disposed

P.Sakthivel, v. the Principal Secretary to

Madras HC23 Feb 2015WP/16216/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging disciplinary proceedings after the Government decided to drop further action. It directed the Principal Secretary to disburse the petitioner's retirement benefits within three months of receiving the order, noting the petitioner had attained superannuation age while proceedings were pending.

What did the court decide?

Directing the first respondent to disburse retirement benefits to the petitioner within three months.

P.Sakthivel, Vs the Principal Secretary to — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

i IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 23.02.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN

¶5

Writ Petition No.16216 of 2012

¶6

& M.P.No.1 of 2012

¶7

1 P.SAKTHIVEL [ PETITIONER ]

¶8

¶9

1 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT CO-OPERATION, FOOD AND CONSUMER PROTECTION DEPARTMENT

¶10

SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI- 9.

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THIRUPPUR.

¶12

3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER DHARAPURAM.

¶13

[ RESPONDENTS ]

¶14

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the first respondent vide Letter No. 5375/CL1/2006-16 dated 1.11.10 and to quash the same.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vijayakumar For Respondents : Mr.M.S.Ramesh, AGP

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioner challenges the order dated 1.11.2010 whereby and whereunder the Government initiated disciplinary proceedings against him.

¶18

When the Writ Petition was taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Government Pleader produced a copy of the Government Orders in G.O.(2D) No.18, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection (CM1) Department dated 5.2.2015 and G.O.(2D) No.33, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection (CM1) Department dated 5.2.2015 to the effect that the Government have decided to drop further action pursuant to the proceedings dated 1.11.2010. In view of the

¶19

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

¶20

subsequent events culminated in passing orders in G.O.(2D) No.18, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection (CM1) Department dated 5.2.2015 and G.O.(2D) No.33, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection (CM1) Department dated 5.2.2015, nothing survives for adjudication in this Writ Petition.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the orders passed by the Government, the petitioner should be given retirement benefits as expeditiously as possible.

¶22

The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2012. He was not permitted to retire on account of the disciplinary proceedings. Now that the Government have taken a decision to drop all further action pursuant to the charge memo, naturally the petitioner should be paid retirement benefits.

¶23

The first respondent is directed to take appropriate action to disburse the benefits payable to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24

The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No
costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ajr
To
1 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
CO-OPERATION, FOOD AND CONSUMER
PROTECTION DEPARTMENT
SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI- 9.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUPPUR.
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
DHARAPURAM.
1 cc to Mr.S.Vijayakumar ,Advocate, SR.No.10301
1 cc to Government Pleader,Sr.No9966
W.P.No.16216 of 2012
ev(co)pmk.10.3.2015

¶25

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

P.Sakthivel, v. the Principal Secretary to

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Sakthivel, 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

C.Thirunavukkarasu, Vs State of Tamilnadu

B.Ramesh, Vs The Director of Agriculture

C.Devadoss, Vs the Additional Registrar

S.Seetharaman Vs the Assistant Treasury Officer

R.Kumar, Vs the Managing Director

K.Saravanan, S/o.Kaveri Vs The District Manager