Allowed

D.Glarin Madhana v. The Customer Relation Officer

Madras HC4 Aug 2015WP/20238/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, the High Court directed respondent insurance officials to consider the petitioner's representation regarding gratuity and death claim benefits arising from a spouse's death and to disburse the payable amount within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider representation and disburse amount payable to petitioner within two weeks.

D.Glarin Madhana Vs The Customer Relation… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 04.08.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

W.P.No.20238 of 2014

D.Glarin Madhana

...Petitioner

Vs.
1. The Customer Relation Officer,
Divisional Office,
Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040.
2. The Branch Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India (CBO.22),
No.128, Bricklin Road, Purasawakkam Branch,
Chennai-600 007.
3. The Assistant Branch Manager,
(LIC of India (CBO 22)
No.128, Bricklin Road,
Purasawakkam Branch,
Chennai-600 007.
4. A.Irish Golda ...Respondents

¶9

Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action on the petitioner's representation letter dated 01.10.2013 relating to disclose the claim arrears of Gratuity calculation, renewal commission and death claim benefits.

¶10

Mr.V.Selvaraj for R4

¶11

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

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The petitioner, who is the wife of late A.Devarajesh, seeking the settlement of retiral benefits, such as, arrears of gratuity and death claim benefits etc., gave a representation dated 01.10.2013 to the respondents 1 and 2. As no order has been passed on the said representation, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶14

When the matter is taken up, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the fourth respondent being the sister of the deceased is the nominee.

¶15

The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that there is no difficulty in disbursing the amount of gratuity in pursuant to the death of A.Devarajesh in favour of the writ petitioner, more over, the fourth respondent is only a sister. 4. In view of the submission made by the learned counsels appearing for the respondents, respondents 1 to 3 are directed to consider the representation made by the petitioner on 01.10.2013 and disburse the amount payable to the petitioner in pursuant to the death of late A.Devarajesh, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar(J) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar raa To 1. The Customer Relation Officer, Divisional Office, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040.

¶16

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

¶17

The Branch Manager,

¶18

Life Insurance Corporation of India (CBO.22),

¶19

No.128, Bricklin Road,

¶20

Purasawakkam Branch,

¶21

Chennai-600 007.

¶22

The Assistant Branch Manager, No.128, Bricklin Road, Purasawakkam Branch, Chennai-600 007.

¶23

1 CC to Mr.R.S.Anandan, Advocate SR.No. 40133
W.P.No.20238 of 2014
SVI (CO)
PSI (19.08.2015)

¶24

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

D.Glarin Madhana v. The Customer Relation Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Glarin Madhana v. The Customer Relation Officer

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

R.T.L.Chandar Old No. Vs The Joint Commissioner of

G.Kuppammal Vs The Assistant Commissioner

Nallasamy @Rajarajan, Vs The Sub Registrar

K.Lakshmi, Vs The Zonal Manager

A.K.Balakrishna Pillai, Vs The Collector

T.S.Ponnurangan Vs The Manager